State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Patrick Larson, Appellant.

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. Patrick Larson, Appellant. Case Number: ED79250 Handdown Date: 12/04/2001 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. John Ross Counsel for Appellant: Alan S. Cohen Counsel for Respondent: Dora A. Fichter Opinion Summary: Patrick Larson ("Appellant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.07 motion to set aside a guilty plea in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. The plea court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Appellant on probation for a period of five years. DISMISSED. Division Three holds: A suspended imposition of sentence is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal. The fact that Appellant was placed on probation is irrelevant because probation is not part of the sentence. Because there has been no final judgment, there is no appellate jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. Citation: Opinion Author: Richard B. Teitelman, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Ahrens and R. Dowd, Jr., JJ., concur. Opinion: Opinion modified by Court's own motion on December 11, 2001 . This substitution does not constitute a new opinion. Patrick Larson ("Appellant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.07 motion to set aside a guilty plea in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. The guilty plea sought to be set aside was for two counts of sexual abuse in the first

degree. The plea court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Appellant on probation for a period of five years. Appeal in Missouri is limited to cases of final judgment. State v. Lynch, 679 S.W.2d 858, 859 (Mo.banc 1984). In criminal cases, there is no final judgment until sentence is entered. Yale v. City of Independence, 846 S.W.2d 193, 194 (Mo.banc 1993); Lynch at 860. Accordingly, a suspended imposition of sentence is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Id. Nonetheless, Appellant argues that appellate jurisdiction still attaches because, in addition to the suspended imposition of sentence, he was also placed on probation. This argument fails because probation is not part of the sentence. State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. 1994); McCulley v. State, 486 S.W.2d 419, 423 (Mo.1972). Therefore, the fact that Appellant was on probation has no bearing on whether there is a final judgment supporting appellate jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.