STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. DONALD FERRELL, Appellant

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Respondent, vs. DONALD FERRELL, Appellant. No. SD30172 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY Honorable Kelly Parker, Judge APPEAL DISMISSED 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 1 Statutory citations are to RSMo as amended through 2005. 1 appeal a trial judge's decision to grant or deny probation. Id. See also State v. Mahurin, 207 S.W.3d 662, 662-63 (Mo.App. 2006); State v. Carrillo, 935 S.W.2d 328, 329 & n.1 (Mo.App. 1996). Defendant s effort to distinguish this precedent2 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 cases3 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. Daniel E. Scott, Chief Judge Rahmeyer, P.J., and Bates, J., concur Filed: August 17, 2010 Appellant s attorney: N. Scott Rosenblum, Eric Selig, Erin R. Griebel Respondent s attorney: Chris Koster, Daniel N. McPherson 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. 3 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). 2 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.