Timmy L. Sumpter, Appellant, v. Alan Blake, Respondent.

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: Timmy L. Sumpter, Appellant, v. Alan Blake, Respondent. Case Number: ED90621 Handdown Date: 04/15/2008 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Francois County, Hon. James H. Kelly Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Jeremiah W. Nixon Opinion Summary: Timmy Sumpter appeals the circuit court's judgment overruling his petition for writ of habeas corpus. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: No appeal lies from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Citation: Opinion Author: Patricia L. Cohen, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Shaw and Baker, JJ., concur. Opinion: Timmy Sumpter appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The appeal is dismissed. If this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, then it should be dismissed. Buff v. Roper, 155 S.W.3d 811, 812 (Mo.App.E.D. 2005). Appellant seeks to appeal from the circuit court's judgment dismissing his petition for writ of habeas

corpus. An appeal does not lie from the denial or dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus. Blackmon v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, 97 S.W.3d 458 (Mo. banc 2003); Garner v. Roper, 224 S.W.3d 623 (Mo.App.E.D. 2007). We issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant filed a response asking this Court to address the merits of his appeal. However, if this Court does not have jurisdiction, then it cannot address the merits of the appeal. Appellant's remedy, if any, is where a petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied is to file a new writ petition in a higher court. Webster v. Purkett, 110 S.W.3d 832, 837 (Mo.App.E.D. 2003). We decline to treat his appeal as an extraordinary writ petition. The appeal is dismissed for lack of an appealable judgment. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.