State v. Nenninger
State v. Nenninger
Opinion of the Court
Tony R. Nenninger (defendant) attempts to appeal a fine assessed against him in a case in which he was charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana, a controlled substance. § 195.202, RSMo 1994. For the reasons that follow, this court must dismiss the appeal.
Although not questioned by a party, an appellate court must determine its jurisdiction before undertaking to ad
An appellate court looks to the record on appeal to ascertain whether a judgment was rendered. The legal file component of the record on appeal must include a copy of the judgment and sentence. Rule 30.04(a). Rule 29.07(c) requires that a judgment of conviction “set forth the plea, the verdict or findings, and the adjudication and sentence.” No such document appears in the legal file in this case.
The docket entry recitations do not comply with requirements for a judgment imposed by Rule 29.07(c). The docket entry is similar to the one in State v. Miner, 606 S.W.2d 448 (Mo.App. 1980), that was insufficient to “be transmogrified into a judgment.” Id. at 449. The docket entry in Miner was not a rendition of a final judgment from which an appeal could be taken.
The record on appeal before this court does not include a final judgment. The appeal is dismissed.
. Another deficiency noted in the legal file component of the record on appeal was the absence of a copy of a verdict. See Rule 30.04(a).
. The present language in Rule 29.07(c) was effective at the time Miner was decided.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Tony R. NENNINGER
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published