STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. DONALD FERRELL, Appellant
Decision date: UnknownSD30172
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
1
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD30172 ) DONALD FERRELL, ) ) Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY
Honorable Kelly Parker, Judge
APPEAL DISMISSED
Donald Ferrell (Defendant) appeals from an order denying his release on probation under § 559.115. 1 We dismiss the appeal because said order is not a final, appealable judgment. There is no right of appeal without statutory authority. State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. banc 1994). In criminal cases, § 547.070 authorizes appeals from "final" judgments; a final judgment occurs when a sentence is entered; and probation is not part of a sentence. Id. "Consequently, there is no right to
1 Statutory citations are to RSMo as amended through 2005.
2
appeal a trial judge's decision to grant or deny probation." Id. See also State v. Mahurin, 207 S.W.3d 662, 662-63 (Mo.App. 2006); State v. Carrillo, 935 S.W.2d 328, 329 & n.1 (Mo.App. 1996). Defendant's effort to distinguish this precedent 2 is not persuasive, partly because it cites cases that were not direct appeals, but the type of writ actions that Williams called "sufficient" remedies in this situation. See 871 S.W.2d at 452 n.2. Whatever such cases 3 hold on the merits, they do not support a direct appeal here or undermine Williams on that issue. Lacking authority to proceed, we dismiss this appeal.
Daniel E. Scott, Chief Judge Rahmeyer, P.J., and Bates, J., concur
Appellant's attorney: N. Scott Rosenblum, Eric Selig, Erin R. Griebel Respondent's attorney: Chris Koster, Daniel N. McPherson
2 These points wholly disregard Rule 84.04(d)(1)(A) and arguably preserve nothing for review, but we have exercised our discretion not to dismiss on that basis. 3 Defendant principally cites two mandamus cases: State ex rel. Mertens v. Brown, 198 S.W.3d 616, 619 (Mo. banc 2006) and State ex rel. Dane v. State, 115 S.W.3d 876, 879 (Mo.App. 2003).
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261
Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.