Queen v. State
This text of 214 S.W.3d 410 (Queen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Donald L. Queen (“Movant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his petition to reopen Movant’s post-conviction relief motion proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
Movant was sentenced to fifty years imprisonment following conviction by a jury of first-degree burglary, attempted first-degree arson, three counts of first degree assault, and one count of first-degree tampering. Movant filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief which the motion court denied without evidentiary hearing. Choosing not to appeal this denial, Movant filed a petition to reopen his post-convietion relief motion proceedings. On April 7, 2006, Appellant’s motion was overruled via a docket entry. Movant appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
A final judgment is a prerequisite to appellate review. Belger v. State, 202 S.W.3d 96, 96 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). We must strictly enforce the requirements of Rule 74.01(a). Id. Rule 74.01(a) dictates that a judgment is final when it is written, signed by the judge, denominated “judgment” or “decree” and filed. See Rule 71.01(a). Here, the docket entry overruling Movant’s petition fails to include any of these requirements. The ruling from which Movant appeals is not a final judgment. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
III. CONCLUSION
This appeal is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
214 S.W.3d 410, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 304, 2007 WL 506473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/queen-v-state-moctapp-2007.