City of Neosho v. Doyle

52 S.W.3d 651, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1448, 2001 WL 967894
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 27, 2001·No. No. 23488·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PARRISH, Presiding Judge.

Richard J. Doyle attempts to appeal a conviction for violating a Neosho, Missouri, municipal ordinance. He sought and received a trial de novo following a trial before the Municipal Judge Division of the Circuit Court of Newton County. For the reasons that follow, the appeal must be dismissed.

Although this court’s jurisdiction has not been questioned, an appellate court is required to determine its jurisdiction before undertaking to address the merits of an appeal.1 State v. Bain, 982 S.W.2d 706, 707 (Mo.App.1998). In order for an appeal to be taken in either a criminal case or a civil case, a final judgment is required.2 State v. Weber, 989 [652] S.W.2d 256, 257 (Mo.App.1999); Stipp v. Meadows, 962 S.W.2d 464 (Mo.App.1998). No judgment appears in the legal file appellant filed as part of the record on appeal in this court.3

Appellant’s legal file includes copies of docket sheets from the trial court’s records. Handwritten docket entries dated “1 19 00” and “2 14 00” recite trial events, denial of a motion for new trial and the punishment intended to be imposed on appellant (“a fíne of $350.00 plus all court costs”). The language is not sufficient to satisfy requirements for a judgment imposed by Rule 37.64(d). It is not sufficient for transmogrification into a judgment. See State v. Miner, 606 S.W.2d 448, 449 (Mo.App.1980). The appeal is dismissed.

SHRUM and MONTGOMERY, JJ„ concur.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

City of Neosho v. Doyle, 52 S.W.3d 651, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1448, 2001 WL 967894 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

52 S.W.3d 651 (City of Neosho v. Doyle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hawthorne
276 S.W.3d 916 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)