State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert R. Engle, Appellant
Decision date: UnknownED83358
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Robert R. Engle
- 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. Robert R. Engle, Appellant Case Number: ED83358 Handdown Date: 01/13/2004 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Hon. Gary Kramer, Judge Counsel for Appellant: Forrest Wegge Counsel for Respondent: Shannon Dougherty-Lee Opinion Summary: Robert Engle appeals from an order revoking his probation. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: An order revoking probation is not a final, appealable judgment and we must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Citation: Opinion Author: Sherri B. Sullivan, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Mooney and Draper III, JJ., concur. Opinion: On January 14, 2003, Robert Engle (Defendant) pleaded guilty to domestic assault in the third degree. In accordance with a plea agreement, the court suspended imposition of Defendant's sentence and placed him on probation. On August 7, 2003, the trial court concluded that Defendant had violated the conditions of his probation and revoked his probation. The court sentenced Defendant to six months in the county jail, but suspended execution of the sentence and placed Defendant on probation for two years. Defendant has filed the instant appeal, stating he is appealing "the trial court's ruling that he violated a condition of his probation resulting in the revocation of the suspended imposition of the
sentence and the imposition of a six (6) month jail sentence." We have a duty to sua sponte determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. State v. Wilson, 15 S.W.3d 71, 72 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000). There is no right to an appeal without statutory authority. State v. Williams , 871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. banc 1994). Section 547.070, RSMo 2000, provides for an appeal in criminal cases in all cases of "final judgment." A final judgment in a criminal case occurs only when a sentence is entered. State v. Lynch , 679 S.W.2d 858, 859-60 (Mo. banc 1984). No appeal may be taken from a revocation of probation; instead, errors in probation revocation proceedings may be contested by the appropriate writ. State v. Stewart , 14 S.W.3d 671, 672 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000). We issued an order directing Defendant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. Defendant did not file a response. A direct appeal from his probation revocation hearing is not the proper method to address any alleged deficiencies in the trial court's revocation of the probation. Stewart , 14 S.W.3d at 672. The appeal is dismissed for lack of a final, 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.
Statutes
- RSMo § 547.070cited
Section 547.070, RSMo
Cases
- a final judgment in a criminal case occurs only when a sentence is entered state v lynch 679 sw2d 858cited
A final judgment in a criminal case occurs only when a sentence is entered. State v. Lynch , 679 S.W.2d 858
- state v stewart 14 sw3d 671cited
State v. Stewart , 14 S.W.3d 671
- there is no right to an appeal without statutory authority state v williams 871 sw2d 450cited
There is no right to an appeal without statutory authority. State v. Williams , 871 S.W.2d 450
- we have a duty to sua sponte determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal state v wilson 15 sw3d 71cited
We have a duty to sua sponte determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. State v. Wilson, 15 S.W.3d 71
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.