Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-05-2018
Case Style:
PATRICK R. CONN vs. STATE OF MISSOURI
Case Number: ED106101
Judge: Angela T. Quigless,
Court: MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS EASTERN DISTRICT
Plaintiff's Attorney: Nathan J. Aquino
Defendant's Attorney: Carol D. Jansen
Description:
 |  |
A final judgment is a prerequisite for appeal. Green v. State, 494 S.W.3d 525, 527 (Mo.
banc 2016). A final judgment is one that resolves all claims and issues in a case, leaving nothing
for future determination. Id. In adjudicating a motion for post-conviction relief, the motion court
“shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a
hearing is held.” Rule 24.035(j). Such findings and conclusions constitute a final judgment for
purposes of appeal. Rule 24.035(k). Where a motion court fails to acknowledge, adjudicate, or
dispose of all claims asserted in a motion for post-conviction relief, the judgment is not final. Id.
at 533. Absent a final judgment, there is no appellate review and the appeal must be dismissed.
Id. at 527.
Here, Movant’s amended motion asserted three claims for post-conviction relief,
including that: (1) the trial court erred in convicting Movant of felony stealing under Section
570.030.1 RSMo 2000 (Cum. Supp. 2009) and imposing a five-year sentence because, under
State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263, 266-67 (Mo. banc 2016), the offense was actually a
misdemeanor offense, therefore the sentence that exceeded the maximum sentence authorized by
law; (2) the trial court erred in convicting Movant of first-degree assault in the absence of a
factual basis to support the conviction as required by Rule 24.02(e), in violation of Movant’s
constitutional right to due process; and (3) Movant was denied his right to effective assistance of
counsel because trial counsel misinformed Movant he would be eligible for parole, failed to
investigate the potential testimony of three witnesses, and failed to provide Movant with
discovery. The motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment addressed
and denied Movant’s claims regarding the length of his sentence and the ineffective assistance of
trial counsel. However, the motion court failed to acknowledge, adjudicate, or dispose of
Movant’s claim that his first-degree assault conviction was not supported by a factual basis.
Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.
Outcome:
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: