State v. Lynch

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Lynch

192 S.W.3d 502, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 690, 2006 WL 1319979

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 2006

DocketED 87896

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 192 S.W.3d 502 (State v. Lynch) 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. Lynch, 192 S.W.3d 502, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 690, 2006 WL 1319979 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

GLENN A. NORTON, C.J.

Defendant Charles Lynch appeals from a judgment denying his motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, speedy trial and Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. The appeal is dismissed.

This Court has a duty to examine its jurisdiction sua sponte. State v. Palm, 158 S.W.3d 861 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). In criminal cases, the right of appeal is limited to final judgments. Section 547.070, RSMo 2000. A judgment is final for purposes of appeal when the judgment and sentence are entered. State v. Welch, 865 S.W.2d 434, 435 (Mo.App. E.D.1993).

Here, no judgment and sentence has been entered. Defendant is improperly attempting to appeal from an interlocutory order of the trial court denying his motion to dismiss. This is not an appealable order under section 547.070. State v. Liggins, 133 S.W.3d 563, 564 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). We issued an order directing Defendant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. Defendant has filed a response to the order. He acknowledges that the appeal is interlocutory, but asks this Court to review the issue. Where there is no final, appealable judgment, we have no jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Palm, 158 S.W.3d at 861.

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final, appealable judgment.

KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J., concurring.

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

GLENN A. NORTON, C.J.

Defendant Charles Lynch appeals from a judgment denying his motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, speedy trial and Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. The appeal is dismissed.

This Court has a duty to examine its jurisdiction sua sponte. State v. Palm, 158 S.W.3d 861 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). In criminal cases, the right of appeal is limited to final judgments. Section 547.070, RSMo 2000. A judgment is final for purposes of appeal when the judgment and sentence are entered. State v. Welch, 865 S.W.2d 434, 435 (Mo.App. E.D.1993).

Here, no judgment and sentence has been entered. Defendant is improperly attempting to appeal from an interlocutory order of the trial court denying his motion to dismiss. This is not an appealable order under section 547.070. State v. Liggins, 133 S.W.3d 563, 564 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). We issued an order directing Defendant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. Defendant has filed a response to the order. He acknowledges that the appeal is interlocutory, but asks this Court to review the issue. Where there is no final, appealable judgment, we have no jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Palm, 158 S.W.3d at 861.

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final, appealable judgment.

KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J., concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 S.W.3d 502, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 690, 2006 WL 1319979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lynch-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack