State v. Finerson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Finerson

159 S.W.3d 527, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 527, 2005 WL 756346

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 2005

DocketNo. ED 85295

StatusPublished

This text of 159 S.W.3d 527 (State v. Finerson) 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. Finerson, 159 S.W.3d 527, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 527, 2005 WL 756346 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Anthony Finerson, appeals the denial of his pro se motion to have a mistake in judgment, sentence, and commitment corrected pursuant to Rule 29.12(b) and (c) by orders “Nunc Pro Tunc.” Because defendant did not file a timely notice of appeal, we dismiss.

The court denied defendant’s motion on March 25, 2004. Defendant did not file a notice of appeal until April 8, 2004, fourteen days later.

A judgment denying a Rule 29.12(c) nunc pro tunc motion becomes final on the date it is filed. State v. Lawrence, 139 S.W.3d 573, 576 (Mo.App.2004). Rule 30.01(d) requires a defendant to file a notice of appeal not later than ten days after the judgment or order appealed from becomes final. Thus, defendant was required to file a notice of appeal no later than ten days after his nunc pro tunc motion had been denied. Lawrence, 139 S.W.3d at 576 (holding notice of appeal filed 23 days after the motion court denied nunc pro tunc motion to be untimely).

Because defendant’s notice of appeal was not filed within ten days after his nunc pro tunc motion was denied, it was untimely. “A timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement.” [528]*528Id. at 576; see also McGee v. Allen, 929 S.W.2d 278, 280 (Mo.App.1996). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to review defendant’s appeal.

Defendant’s motion to strike the state’s brief is denied.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Anthony Finerson, appeals the denial of his pro se motion to have a mistake in judgment, sentence, and commitment corrected pursuant to Rule 29.12(b) and (c) by orders “Nunc Pro Tunc.” Because defendant did not file a timely notice of appeal, we dismiss.

The court denied defendant’s motion on March 25, 2004. Defendant did not file a notice of appeal until April 8, 2004, fourteen days later.

A judgment denying a Rule 29.12(c) nunc pro tunc motion becomes final on the date it is filed. State v. Lawrence, 139 S.W.3d 573, 576 (Mo.App.2004). Rule 30.01(d) requires a defendant to file a notice of appeal not later than ten days after the judgment or order appealed from becomes final. Thus, defendant was required to file a notice of appeal no later than ten days after his nunc pro tunc motion had been denied. Lawrence, 139 S.W.3d at 576 (holding notice of appeal filed 23 days after the motion court denied nunc pro tunc motion to be untimely).

Because defendant’s notice of appeal was not filed within ten days after his nunc pro tunc motion was denied, it was untimely. “A timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement.” [528]*528Id. at 576; see also McGee v. Allen, 929 S.W.2d 278, 280 (Mo.App.1996). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to review defendant’s appeal.

Defendant’s motion to strike the state’s brief is denied.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 S.W.3d 527, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 527, 2005 WL 756346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-finerson-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack