Terrence Vann, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Terry Russell, Defendant/Respondent.
Decision date: September 2, 2014ED101838
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Terrence Vann, Plaintiff/
- Respondent
- Terry Russell, Defendant/
Judges
- Trial Court Judge
- LISA VAN AMBURG
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
TERRENCE VANN, ) No. ED101838 Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) vs. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) St. Francois County TERRY RUSSELL, ) Defendant/Respondent. ) Filed: September 2, 2014
Appellant appeals from the judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant has not filed a response. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus with the trial court, which denied his petition. Appellant filed an appeal from this judgment and has raised two points in his brief assigning error to the denial of his habeas petition. However, the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not appealable. Blackmon v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, 97 S.W.3d 458, 458 (Mo. banc 2003); Webster v. Purkett, 110 S.W.3d 832, 837 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). The State's motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed for lack of an appealable judgment.
__________________________________ ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, CHIEF JUDGE
LISA VAN AMBURG, J. and PHILIP M. HESS, J., Concur.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Cases
- blackmon v missouri board of probation and parole 97 sw3d 458cited
Blackmon v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, 97 S.W.3d 458
- webster v purkett 110 sw3d 832cited
Webster v. Purkett, 110 S.W.3d 832
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.