State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Timothy Klaus, 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. Timothy Klaus, Appellant. Case Number: ED80977 Handdown Date: 12/10/2002 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County, Hon. Scott Thomsen Counsel for Appellant: Albert C. Lowes Counsel for Respondent: Nicole E. Gorovsky Opinion Summary: Timothy Klaus appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction for first-degree child molestation, section 566.067 RSMo 2000, pursuant to his guilty plea. He claims the court erred in failing to consider probation due to an erroneous presentence investigation report indicating he was ineligible for probation and in allowing the victim's father to give a victim impact statement. DISMISSED. Division Three holds: In a direct appeal of a judgment and sentence entered as a result of a guilty plea, our review is limited to the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the information or indictment. Klaus has not raised either issue, and the appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. Citation: Opinion Author: Lawrence G. Crahan, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Russell and Ahrens, JJ., concur. Opinion: Timothy Klaus ("Defendant") appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction for child molestation in the first degree, section 566.067 RSMo 2000, pursuant to his guilty plea. Defendant claims the trial court erred in failing to consider probation due to an erroneous presentence investigation report indicating he was ineligible for probation and in

allowing the victim's father to give a victim impact statement. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In a direct appeal of a judgment and sentence entered as a result of a guilty plea, our review is restricted to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court and the sufficiency of the information or indictment. State v. Sparks, 916 S.W.2d 234, 236 (Mo. App. 1995). Challenges to the legality of the sentence imposed may be considered only in response to a Rule 24.035 motion. State v. Sharp, 39 S.W.3d 70, 72 (Mo. App. 2001). Because Defendant does not challenge either the jurisdiction of the trial court or the sufficiency of the indictment, his appeal must be and is hereby dismissed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.