Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Second Division
from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County Hon. David Lee
G. Dowd, Jr, Judge.
appeal arises from the denial of motion regarding Gordon
Goldsby's speedy trial rights, filed decades after his
trial, convictions, appeal and post-conviction proceedings
were complete. We dismiss the appeal.
was convicted after a jury trial in 1990 for a kidnapping,
forcible rape and assault that occurred in
1972. He was sentenced to ten years, life and
twenty-five years imprisonment respectively, to be served
consecutively. In 1992, the judgment entered on these
convictions and the denial of his motion for post-conviction
relief under Rule 29.15 were affirmed. See State v.
Goldsby, 845 S.W.2d 636 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992). In 2010,
Goldsby filed a series of motions in the trial court, seeking
to correct an alleged discrepancy between the written
judgment and the oral pronouncement of sentence, all of which
were denied by the court. See State v. Goldsby, 341
S.W.3d 809 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (affirming those denials in a
per curiam order). In 2017, Goldsby began filing another
series of motions in the trial court, among them a pleading
filed on November 7, 2017, entitled "PETITION REQUESTING
A FAST AND SPEEDY TRIAL WITHIN 180 DAYS OF THIS REQUEST ON
THE ABOVE CAUSE 21-360974 AND FOR ANY ANOTHER AND ALL
OUTSTANDING UNTRIED INFORMATIONS(S), INDICTMENTS(S) AND
WARRANT(S)." Therein, he claimed the sentences for his
1990 conviction were excessive, the judgment thereon invalid
and there were no proper final judgments entered for rape or
assault. Thus, he sought to have the judgments removed and
these charges and any others tried within 180 days of that
2, 2018, Goldsby filed a "MOTION TO CALL-UP FOR FINAL
FINDINGS UNDER SECTION 217.460 RSMo, PURSUANT TO SUPREME
COURT RULE 73.01(c), FOR WHETHER HIS U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL
SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED DURING THIS CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION." In this motion, he contended that because
the State did not bring him to trial on the 1972 charges
within 180 days of the pleading he filed in November of 2017,
the trial court was now obligated under Section 217.460 to
appoint counsel, hold a hearing and determine whether his
speedy trial rights had been violated.
August 7, 2018, the court entered judgment, first taking
judicial notice of the entire case file in this matter and
the file in his post-conviction proceeding. The court found
and concluded that because the November 2017 petition was a
"nullity," there was nothing in the instant motion
that warranted relief and it denied the motion. This appeal
follows. The State correctly argues that this is not an
appealable judgment, and Goldsby's appeal must be
right to appeal is purely statutory, and where a statute does
not give a right to appeal no right exists. State v.
Nelson, 505 S.W.3d 869, 871 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016).
According to Section 547.070, appeals in a criminal case may
only be taken from a final judgment rendered upon indictment
or information. State v. McCauley, 496 S.W.3d 593,
595 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016). The court's ruling here was
denominated a "judgment," but was not rendered on
the indictment or information. Rather, it was a ruling on a
motion seeking relief from the judgments entered on those
charges. "Nearly all" such rulings in criminal
cases denying motions requesting various types of relief
after the judgment and sentence are not appealable.
there was no independent basis for either of Goldsby's
motions in the trial court. Goldsby's November 2017
"180-day writ petition"-as he calls it-was an
entirely misplaced and unauthorized attempt to trigger a new
180-day speedy trial timeline on the 1972 charges, based on
the theory that valid judgments were never entered when he
was originally convicted because he claims the sentences were
excessive. Likewise, then, there was no independent basis for
his July 2018 motion seeking a hearing and final
determination of the issue raised in that
"petition." As a logical result, there can also be
no appealable judgment from the denial of that motion.
See generally Vernor v. State, 30 S.W.3d 196, 197
(Mo. App. E.D. 2000).
without an independent basis for the underlying motions and
no statutory authority for an appeal, the appeal must be
M Hess, P.J., and Mary K Hoff, J., concur.
 After he was arraigned on the charges
for these crimes, he was released on bond but did not appear
for trial. He was arrested when re-entering the United States
 Though the Legal File contains only a
copy of this document without the file-stamp, Case net
reveals that this pleading was filed on November 7, 2017,
listed in the docket sheet as ...