224 S.W.3d 89

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Melvin Leroy TYLER, Appellant.

No. WD 67384.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 20, 2007.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 1, 2007.

Application for Transfer Denied June 26, 2007.

*90Melvin Leroy Tyler, Jefferson City, pro se.

Shaun J. Mackelprang, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before JAMES M. SMART, JR., Presiding Judge, JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Judge, and EDWIN H. SMITH, Judge.

JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Judge.

Melvin Leroy Tyler appeals from the denial of his pro se motion filed on November 2, 2005, in the Circuit Court of Platte County, challenging his June 2, 1977 convictions for forcible rape, robbery in the first degree, kidnapping, and armed criminal action. In his motion, Appellant claimed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his case because he had filed a motion to remove the case to federal court and the trial court had not received a remand back from the federal court. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion finding that it was in the nature of a post-conviction motion, that Appellant had already unsuccessfully filed three prior post-conviction motions, and that the current motion was untimely and successive.

Before this Court may address the merits of an appeal, it must first determine whether jurisdiction is proper. Shelton v. Shelton, 201 S.W.3d 576, 579 (Mo.App. W.D.2006). “If we lack jurisdiction, then the appeal must be dismissed.” Id.

This Court’s jurisdiction is derivative of the trial court. Id. A trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain a post-conviction motion filed beyond the time limits provided in the applicable Supreme Court Rule. Patterson v. State, 164 S.W.3d 546, 548 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). Moreover, Rule 27.26, which was the rule governing motions for post-conviction relief in effect at the time of Appellant’s conviction, prohibited the trial court from entertaining a successive Rule 27.26 motion when the grounds asserted were raised in the original motion or could have been raised therein. Hooper v. State, 579 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Mo.App. E.D.1979).

After Appellant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal,1 on December 28, 1987, Appellant filed his first motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 27.26, which was denied following a hearing. Tyler v. State, 994 S.W.2d 50, 50 (Mo.App. W.D.1999). The denial of that motion was affirmed on appeal.2 Id. Appellant filed a second Rule 27.26 motion on March 18, 1996, which was denied as untimely. Id. The denial of that motion was affirmed on appeal.3 Id. Appellant filed *91his third motion for post-conviction relief on September 18, 1997, and that motion was dismissed as being both successive and untimely. Id. The dismissal of that motion was affirmed on appeal. Id. Appellant’s current post-conviction motion is likewise both successive and untimely.

Appellant asserts that his motion could have been granted under the plain error provisions of Rule 29.12(b). Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, however, “Rule 29.12(b) provides no basis for an independent motion and further, there is no statutory authority for an appeal from an order denying a Rule 29.12(b) motion.” State v. Smith, 204 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Mo.App. E.D.2006); see also Vernor v. State, 30 S.W.3d 196, 197 (Mo.App. E.D.2000).

In short, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Appellant’s motion, and, as a result, this court lacks jurisdiction over Appellant’s appeal. Appellant’s appeal is, therefore, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.4

All concur.

State v. Tyler
224 S.W.3d 89

Case Details

Name
State v. Tyler
Decision Date
Mar 20, 2007
Citations

224 S.W.3d 89

Jurisdiction
Missouri

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!