Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

317 S.W.3d 688

State v. Ferrell

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 17, 2010

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2010-08-17

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 2019

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“There is no right of appeal without statutory authority. In criminal cases, [section] 547.070 authorizes appeals from “final” judgments; a final judgment occurs when a sentence is entered; and probation is not part of a sentence. Consequently, there is no right to appeal a trial judge’s decision to grant or deny probation.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Vaughn

Relies on State v. Williams · State Ex Rel. Mertens v. Brown · State v. Mahurin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2010-08-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*689 DANIEL E. SCOTT, Chief Judge.

¶1 Donald Ferrell (Defendant) appeals from an order denying his release on probation under § 559.115. 1 We dismiss the appeal because said order is not a final, appealable judgment.

¶2 There is no right of appeal without statutory authority. State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. banc 1994). In criminal cases, § 547.070 authorizes appeals from “final” judgments; a final judgment occurs when a sentence is entered; and probation is not part of a sentence. Id. “Consequently, there is no right to appeal a trial judge’s decision to grant or deny probation.” Id. See also State v. Mahurin, 207 S.W.3d 662, 662-68 (Mo.App.2006); State v. Carrillo, 935 S.W.2d 328, 329 & n. 1 (Mo.App.1996).

¶3 Defendant’s effort to distinguish this precedent 2 is not persuasive, partly because it cites cases that were not direct appeals, but the type of writ actions that Williams called “sufficient” remedies in this situation. See 871 S.W.2d at 452 n. 2. Whatever such cases 3 hold on the merits, they do not support a direct appeal here or undermine Williams on that issue.

¶4 Lacking authority to proceed, we dismiss this appeal.

RAHMEYER, P.J., and BATES, J., concur.
1

¶5 . Statutory citations are to RSMo as amended through 2005.

2

¶6 . These points wholly disregard Rule 84.04(d)(1)(A) and arguably preserve nothing for review, but we have exercised our discretion not to dismiss on that basis.

3

¶7 .Defendant principally cites two mandamus cases: State ex rel. Mertens v. Brown, 198 S.W.3d 616, 619 (Mo. banc 2006) and State ex rel. Dane v. State, 115 S.W.3d 876, 879 (Mo.App.2003).

/317/sw3d/688 · .json · Public domain