State v. Camden

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Camden

514 S.W.2d 181, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1678

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 16, 1974

DocketNo. 9699

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 514 S.W.2d 181 (State v. Camden) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Camden, 514 S.W.2d 181, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1678 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

FLANIGAN, Judge.

On October 24, 1973, appellant was convicted of felonious stealing, was sentenced to a five-year prison term and was placed on probation by the trial court. The order granting probation included certain conditions. On January 7, 1974, the trial court received, from the State Probation and Parole Officer, a “report of violation of conditions of probation.” On February 25, 1974, the trial court held a hearing “on the matter of revocation of probation.” The defendant and his attorney were present. Following the hearing appellant’s probation was revoked. Thereafter, appellant filed his notice of appeal “from the order revoking defendant’s parole and ordering him committed pursuant to the sentence previously imposed.”

The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that “an order of parole revocation is not reviewable by direct appeal.” The motion is sustained.

Defendant does not have a right of appeal from a revocation of probation after a hearing thereon. § 549.141, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.; State v. Phillips, 443 S.W.2d 139 (Mo.1969); State v. Gideon, 510 S.W.2d 190 (Mo.App.1974).

Other remedies, including habeas corpus [Moore v. Stamps, 507 S.W.2d 939 (Mo.App., 1974)] or prohibition [State ex rel. Douglas v. Buder, 485 S.W.2d 609 (Mo.1972)], may be available to defendant, if factually supported.

The appeal is dismissed.

HOGAN, C. J., and STONE, TITUS and BILLINGS, JJ., concur.

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

FLANIGAN, Judge.

On October 24, 1973, appellant was convicted of felonious stealing, was sentenced to a five-year prison term and was placed on probation by the trial court. The order granting probation included certain conditions. On January 7, 1974, the trial court received, from the State Probation and Parole Officer, a “report of violation of conditions of probation.” On February 25, 1974, the trial court held a hearing “on the matter of revocation of probation.” The defendant and his attorney were present. Following the hearing appellant’s probation was revoked. Thereafter, appellant filed his notice of appeal “from the order revoking defendant’s parole and ordering him committed pursuant to the sentence previously imposed.”

The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that “an order of parole revocation is not reviewable by direct appeal.” The motion is sustained.

Defendant does not have a right of appeal from a revocation of probation after a hearing thereon. § 549.141, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.; State v. Phillips, 443 S.W.2d 139 (Mo.1969); State v. Gideon, 510 S.W.2d 190 (Mo.App.1974).

Other remedies, including habeas corpus [Moore v. Stamps, 507 S.W.2d 939 (Mo.App., 1974)] or prohibition [State ex rel. Douglas v. Buder, 485 S.W.2d 609 (Mo.1972)], may be available to defendant, if factually supported.

The appeal is dismissed.

HOGAN, C. J., and STONE, TITUS and BILLINGS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

514 S.W.2d 181, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-camden-moctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack