# State v. Ferrell

> Missouri Court of Appeals · August 17, 2010 · 317 S.W.3d 688

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2281937

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donald FERRELL, Appellant
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** August 17, 2010
- **Citations:** 317 S.W.3d 688; 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1048; 2010 WL 3222425
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Scott
- **Judges:** Daniel E. Scott
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2281937

## Opinion text

*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.
1
. Statutory citations are to RSMo as amended through 2005.
2
. 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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2281937. Public record. Not legal advice.