State of Missouri, Respondent v. Robert I. Fisher, Appellant.
Decision date: UnknownED84678
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. Robert I. Fisher, Appellant. Case Number: ED84678 Handdown Date: 04/19/2005 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Franklin County, Hon. Gael D. Wood Counsel for Appellant: Rosalynn Koch Counsel for Respondent: Deborah Daniels and Leslie McNamara Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Ahren, P.J., Norton and Baker, J.J. Opinion: This appeal arises from Robert Fisher's conviction for second degree statutory sodomy after a bench trial. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court issued a "memorandum," in which Fisher was ordered to serve 120-days shock time in the county jail with work release. This order does not meet the requirements of Rule 29.07(c). The trial court's docket sheet indicates that a "judgment" was entered, but no such document appears in the record on appeal. Recognizing that there was no final appealable judgment in this case, the parties jointly sought to stay the appeal pending execution of a final judgment. We ordered Fisher to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final judgment, concluding that there was no authority for the parties' request for a stay and no authority for acceptance of a premature notice of appeal in a criminal case. But see Rule 81.05(b) (regarding premature appeals in civil cases). Nothing has been filed in response to the order to show cause, and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed for lack of a final judgment. Separate Opinion:
None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
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.