State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Maurice Green, Appellant.
Decision date: UnknownED89804
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Maurice Green
- Respondent
- State of Missouri
Disposition
Dismissed
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
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Maurice Green, Appellant. Case Number: ED89804 Handdown Date: 09/11/2007 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. John F. Kintz Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Shaun J. Mackelprang Opinion Summary: Maurice Green appeals from an order overruling his motion to correct an error in his judgment pursuant to Rule 29.12(b). DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Rule 29.12(b) does not support an independent cause of action and there is no statutory authority for an appeal from an order denying such a motion. Citation: Opinion Author: Patricia L. Cohen, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Shaw and Baker, JJ., concur. Opinion: Maurice Green (Defendant) appeals from an order denying his motion to correct an error in his judgment pursuant
to Rule 29.12(b). The appeal is dismissed. Defendant was convicted of trafficking in drugs in the first degree after a plea of guilty. The trial court sentenced him to ten years imprisonment, consistent with his plea agreement. On April 3, 2007, Defendant filed a "Motion to Correct Error Pursuant to Rule 29.12(b)." Defendant asserted that manifest injustice would result if the court did not correct his written judgment and sentence. On April 5, 2007, the trial court denied Defendant's motion. Defendant appealed. This Court must determine its jurisdiction to entertain any appeal. If this Court lacks jurisdiction, then the appeal should be dismissed. Buff v. Roper, 155 S.W.3d 811, 812 (Mo.App.E.D. 2005). Rule 29.12(b) provides: "Plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered in the discretion of the court when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom." In Vernor v. State, 30 S.W.3d 196, 197 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000), this Court held that Rule 29.12(b) does not provide a basis for an independent motion, and that defendant's remedy was to pursue a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035. In addition, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the denial of a Rule 29.12(b) motion, because, if there is no independent basis for defendant's motion, there can be no appealable judgment. Id. Moreover, there is no statutory authority providing the right to appeal from a Rule 29.12(b) motion. Id.; See also, State v. Douglas, 78 S.W.3d 229, 231 (Mo.App.E.D. 2002). We issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant has failed to file a response. Without any authority for an appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. The appeal is dismissed for lack of an appealable judgment. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 24.035cited
Rule 24.035
- Rule 29.12cited
Rule 29.12
Cases
- buff v roper 155 sw3d 811cited
Buff v. Roper, 155 S.W.3d 811
- in vernor v state 30 sw3d 196cited
In Vernor v. State, 30 S.W.3d 196
- state v douglas 78 sw3d 229cited
State v. Douglas, 78 S.W.3d 229
Related Opinions
Other opinions in the same practice area.
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, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172
The court reversed defendant's convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and failed to ensure a written waiver of counsel was entered prior to trial, as required by Missouri law. Although the defendant did not preserve the issue by objecting at trial, the court found the error must be reviewed because the failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing is a constitutional violation that cannot be waived.