State v. Lowe

7 Citing cases

  1. Day v. State

    770 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. 1989)   Cited 527 times
    Stating that “[l]imitation periods for seeking postconviction relief are generally set by statute. Such limitations have withstood constitutional challenge, even in death penalty cases”

    See Tucker, 451 S.W.2d at 92; and State v. Jones, 643 S.W.2d 34, 36 (Mo.App. 1982), upholding the time limit on filing a new trial motion under Rule 29.11(b), and former Rule 27.20. See also State v. Lowe, 365 S.W.2d 613, 614 (Mo. 1963), and State v. Manis, 603 S.W.2d 706, 707 (Mo.App. 1980), upholding the time limit on filing a notice of appeal under Rule 30.01(d), and former Rule 28.03. Federal law also recognizes the validity of time limitations in procedural rules. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 59(b); Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 33; and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4(a)(1), Rule 4(b).

  2. State ex Rel. Wagner v. Ruddy

    582 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. 1979)   Cited 57 times
    In State ex rel. Wagner v. Ruddy, 582 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1979), this Court clearly held that once judgment and sentencing occur in a criminal proceeding, the trial court has exhausted its jurisdiction.

    The judgment in a criminal case is final for purposes of appeal when the judgment and sentence is entered, and a notice of appeal filed in the trial court more than ten days after its entry is ineffective to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction. State v. Domini, 391 S.W.2d 206, 207 (Mo. 1965) (per curiam); State v. Lowe, 365 S.W.2d 613, 614 (Mo. 1963) (per curiam); State v. Henderson, 344 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Mo. 1961); State v. Johnson, 331 S.W.2d 551, 552 (Mo. 1960) (per curiam); State v. Morrow, 316 S.W.2d 527, 529 (Mo. 1958); State v. Parker, 310 S.W.2d 923, 924 (Mo. 1958); State v. Robbins, 269 S.W.2d 27, 29 (Mo. 1954). The very term "sentence" has been defined to mean "judgment or final judgment," and a criminal case is not ripe for appeal if no sentence has been pronounced.

  3. State v. Domini

    391 S.W.2d 206 (Mo. 1965)   Cited 2 times

    State v. Robbins, Mo., 269 S.W.2d 27, 29; State v. Morrow, Mo., 316 S.W.2d 527. Defendant's notice of appeal was not timely and did not vest this court with appellate jurisdiction. State v. Henderson, Mo., 344 S.W.2d 96; State v. Crocker, Mo., 335 S.W.2d 32; State v. Johnson, Mo., 331 S.W.2d 551; State v. Lowe, Mo., 365 S.W.2d 613; State v. Johnson, Mo., 382 S.W.2d 674. The appeal is dismissed.

  4. State v. Gardner

    383 S.W.2d 762 (Mo. 1964)

    PER CURIAM. Whereas it appears from the transcript on file in this cause and exhibits attached that defendant's motion for a new trial, filed on March 15, 1963, following the jury's verdict of guilty on March 5, 1963, was heard and overruled on March 21, 1963, and that defendant on the same day (March 21, 1963) was sentenced to imprisonment in conformity to the jury's verdict; and whereas no notice of appeal was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of said County of Jasper until the 15th day of July, 1963, and no special order of appeal having been applied for or granted under Supreme Court Rule 28.07, V.A.M.R. and the time therefor having elapsed, the Court finds that no timely notice of appeal was filed and hence that this Court is without jurisdiction of this appeal and that the appeal must be dismissed. Supreme Court Rules 28.03 and 82.04; State v. Lowe, Mo. Sup., 365 S.W.2d 613, 614 [3]; State v. Henderson, Mo.Sup., 344 S.W.2d 96, 97. It is so ordered.

  5. State v. Johnson

    382 S.W.2d 674 (Mo. 1964)   Cited 3 times

    No special order for appeal was made herein under Supreme Court Rule 28.07, V.A.M.R. Defendant has failed to take the vital step of timely filing of his notice of appeal in order to perfect the same. State v. Lowe, Mo., 365 S.W.2d 613, 614 [3], and cases there cited. The appeal is dismissed.

  6. State v. Clark

    522 S.W.2d 332 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 13 times

    We hold that defendant has not met his burden, since he failed to bring forward the record showing the alleged error; therefore, there is nothing for this court to review. State v. Lowe, 365 S.W.2d 613 (Mo. 1963). See also State v. Long, Cause No. 9709 (Springfield District) 12 March 1975.

  7. City of St. Louis v. Fernbacher

    449 S.W.2d 672 (Mo. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 5 times

    This court does not take judicial notice of municipal ordinances. City of St. Joseph v. Roller, Mo., 363 S.W.2d 609, 611 [2-4]; City of St. Louis v. Pope, Mo. App., 129 S.W.2d 106, 107 [6]. Sec. 479.250, supra, requires that the manner of taking appeals from the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction to this court shall be the same, as near as may be, as is prescribed by law for taking appeals in criminal cases. And it is the rule of law in criminal case appeals that appellant has the duty to prepare and file a proper transcript in the reviewing court on his appeal. State v. Lowe, Mo., 365 S.W.2d 613, 614 [2]. Since there is no ordinance set forth in the transcript, and since we may not take judicial notice of an ordinance, such a failure precludes our consideration of the case on appeal. City of St. Louis v. Pope, supra, 129 S.W.2d p. 107 [5].