State v. Klaus

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Klaus

91 S.W.3d 706, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2369, 2002 WL 31750145

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 10, 2002

DocketED 80977

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 91 S.W.3d 706 (State v. Klaus) 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. Klaus, 91 S.W.3d 706, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2369, 2002 WL 31750145 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, Judge.

Timothy Klaus (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction for child molestation in the first degree, section 566.067 RSMo 2000, pursuant to his guilty plea. Defendant claims the trial court erred in failing to consider probation due to an erroneous presentence investigation report indicating he was ineligible for probation and in allowing the victim’s father to give a victim impact statement. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

In a direct appeal of a judgment and sentence entered as a result of a guilty plea, our review is restricted to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court and the sufficiency of the information or indictment. State v. Sparks, 916 S.W.2d 234, 236 (Mo.App.1995). Challenges to the legality of the sentence imposed may be considered only in response to a Rule 24.035 motion. State v. Sharp, 39 S.W.3d 70, 72 (Mo.App.2001). Because Defendant does not challenge either the jurisdiction of the trial court or the sufficiency of the *707 indictment, his appeal must be and is hereby dismissed.

MARY R. RUSSELL, J., concurs. CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., concurs.

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

LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, Judge.

Timothy Klaus (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction for child molestation in the first degree, section 566.067 RSMo 2000, pursuant to his guilty plea. Defendant claims the trial court erred in failing to consider probation due to an erroneous presentence investigation report indicating he was ineligible for probation and in allowing the victim’s father to give a victim impact statement. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

In a direct appeal of a judgment and sentence entered as a result of a guilty plea, our review is restricted to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court and the sufficiency of the information or indictment. State v. Sparks, 916 S.W.2d 234, 236 (Mo.App.1995). Challenges to the legality of the sentence imposed may be considered only in response to a Rule 24.035 motion. State v. Sharp, 39 S.W.3d 70, 72 (Mo.App.2001). Because Defendant does not challenge either the jurisdiction of the trial court or the sufficiency of the *707 indictment, his appeal must be and is hereby dismissed.

MARY R. RUSSELL, J., concurs. CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.W.3d 706, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2369, 2002 WL 31750145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-klaus-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack