State v. Fisher

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Fisher

165 S.W.3d 498, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 597, 2005 WL 895752

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 2005

DocketED 84678

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 S.W.3d 498 (State v. Fisher) 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. Fisher, 165 S.W.3d 498, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 597, 2005 WL 895752 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from Robert Fisher’s conviction for second degree statutory sodomy after a bench trial. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court issued a “memorandum,” in which Fisher was ordered to serve 120-days shock time in the county jail with work release. This order does not meet the requirements of Rule 29.07(c). The trial court’s docket sheet indicates that a “judgment” was entered, but no such document appears in the record on appeal. Recognizing that there was no final appealable judgment in this case, the parties jointly sought to stay the appeal pending execution of a final judgment. We ordered Fisher to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final judgment, concluding that there was no authority for the parties’ request for a stay and no authority for acceptance of a premature notice of appeal in a criminal case. But see Ride 81.05(b) (regarding premature appeals in civil cases). Nothing has been filed in response to the order to show cause, and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed for lack of a final judgment.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from Robert Fisher’s conviction for second degree statutory sodomy after a bench trial. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court issued a “memorandum,” in which Fisher was ordered to serve 120-days shock time in the county jail with work release. This order does not meet the requirements of Rule 29.07(c). The trial court’s docket sheet indicates that a “judgment” was entered, but no such document appears in the record on appeal. Recognizing that there was no final appealable judgment in this case, the parties jointly sought to stay the appeal pending execution of a final judgment. We ordered Fisher to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final judgment, concluding that there was no authority for the parties’ request for a stay and no authority for acceptance of a premature notice of appeal in a criminal case. But see Ride 81.05(b) (regarding premature appeals in civil cases). Nothing has been filed in response to the order to show cause, and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed for lack of a final judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.W.3d 498, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 597, 2005 WL 895752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fisher-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack