Swiney v. State
| Decision Date | 19 September 2000 |
| Citation | 27 S.W.3d 498 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. E.D. 2000) . Bryan Swiney, Appellant v. State of Missouri, Respondent ED77513 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. William M. Corrigan
Counsel for Appellant: Bryan Swiney
Counsel for Respondent: Adriane D. Crouse
Opinion Summary: Movant filed this appeal challenging the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.
Division holds: Movant cannot appeal from a void judgment entered by the trial court after a previous judgment in the case had already become final. Further, his notice of appeal is untimely as to the final judgment in the case and we are without jurisdiction to entertain his appeal of that judgment.
Swiney filed this appeal challenging the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Although neither Swiney nor the State raised the issue, we must first address whether we have jurisdiction to consider Swiney's appeal. In doing so, we conclude Swiney's notice of appeal was untimely filed, and we dismiss his appeal.
Swiney plead guilty to first degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of Section 565.081, RSMo 1994, and was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment and delivered to the Department of Corrections on January 20, 1999. Swiney filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 on April 21, 1999. The motion court appointed counsel to represent Swiney. Shortly thereafter, the State filed a motion to dismiss Swiney's motion because it was untimely. Swiney filed a motion to proceed despite the untimeliness of his motion.
At a pre-hearing conference on September 16, 1999, the motion court denied Swiney's motion to proceed. The court then entered a judgment denying Swiney's Rule 24.035 motion as untimely because it was filed ninety-one days from the day he was delivered to the Department of Corrections. Swiney did not file a notice of appeal from this judgment. On January 27, 2000, the motion court entered "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order." Although noting its prior judgment in the matter, the motion court proceeded to consider the merits of Swiney's 24.035 motion, issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law and denying Swiney's motion on the merits. Swiney filed a notice of appeal from this order on February 22, 2000.
The order from which Swiney has appealed is void. The record reflects the motion court entered a judgment denying Swiney's 24.035 motion on September 16, 1999. This judgment fully disposed of Swiney's case and became final thirty days afterward because no authorized after-trial motions were filed. Rule 81.05(a)(1). Therefore, the trial court was without jurisdiction in January of 2000 to change, alter or modify its final judgment of September 16, 1999. Rule 75.01; Lake Thunderbird Property Owners Ass'n v. Lake Thunderbird,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wise v. State
...ruling on a timely filed after-trial motion under Rule 81.05(a), the judgment becomes final. Curtis, 171 S.W.3d at 765; Swiney v. State, 27 S.W.3d 498, 499 (Mo.App.2000). Any notice of appeal must be filed within ten days after the judgment becomes final. Rule Thus, the motion court's autho......
-
Thomas v. State
...judgment is the ultimate issue in this case. 5. See, e.g., State v. Mackin, 927 S.W.2d 553, 557 (Mo.App. S.D.1996); Swiney v. State, 27 S.W.3d 498, 499-500 (Mo.App. E.D.2000); Bell v. State, 164 S.W.3d 97 (Mo.App. E.D.2005); Bolden v. State, 106 S.W.3d 579, 580-81 (Mo.App. 6. Rules 29.15 an......