Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010

State v. Ferrell

Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided August 17, 2010 · SD 30172 · Daniel E. Scott

317 S.W.3d 688; 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1048; 2010 WL 3222425 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Payne (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. LEANN BANDERMAN (Mo. Ct. App. 2019)
STATE OF MISSOURI v. TAMARA D. TIDWELL (Mo. Ct. App. 2019)
STATE OF MISSOURI v. MONTIA McCAULEY (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)
State v. Vaughn (Mo. Ct. App. 2013)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*689 DANIEL E. SCOTT, Chief Judge.

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.

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).

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.

Lacking authority to proceed, we dismiss this appeal.

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

. Statutory citations are to RSMo as amended through 2005.

. 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.

.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).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.