Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CITY OF FLORISSANT, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Damon MOORE, Defendant/Respondent.
Plaintiff, City of Florissant (“city”), appeals from finding of not guilty by the circuit court on trial de novo in favor of defendant, Damon Moore (“defendant”), in an action for violation of the posted speed limit. We dismiss because the city failed to file a notice of appeal within ten days after the charge against defendant was disposed of in circuit court.
Once defendant's appeal from the municipal court judgment was docketed in the circuit court, the Rules of Criminal Procedure controlled the case. City of Ballwin v. Langenberg, 654 S.W.2d 651, 652 (Mo.App.1983); City of Richmond Heights v. Buehler, 644 S.W.2d 390, 391 (Mo.App.1982). The trial court entered its order disposing of the case with a finding of “not guilty” on October 20, 1998.
A judgment of acquittal is final when entered. Buehler, 644 S.W.2d at 391. Criminal Rule 30.01(d) provides: “No such appeal shall be effective unless the notice of appeal shall be filed not later than ten days after the judgment or order appealed from becomes final.” City did not file the notice of appeal until November 20, 1998.1 This court accordingly has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
City argues that because it filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition against the trial judge before it filed its notice of appeal, the time for filing a notice of appeal was tolled. We disagree. No statute or Supreme Court Rule provides that the filing of a writ tolls the time limits set out in Rule 30.01(d).
City also argues that defendant waived the untimely filing by failing to object thereto. Again we disagree. Timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement which we must raise sua sponte if a party fails to do so. State v. Mackin, 927 S.W.2d 553, 557 (Mo.App.1996).
Appeal dismissed.
FOOTNOTES
1. Because we have no jurisdiction as a result of the untimely notice of appeal, we do not consider any other questions going to either the jurisdiction or the merits of this appeal, including the question of double jeopardy.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. ED 75357.
Decided: October 19, 1999
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals,Eastern District,Division Two.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)