Case Title: Joseph Williams, Appellant vs. Colonel Jerry Lee and Colonel Ron Replogle, Respondents.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC90988

State: missouri

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Date: 2011-01-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
 
JOSEPH WILLIAMS, 
    
 
 
) 
 
 
                          Appellant,           
 
)    
                                                       
 
)    
vs.                                                    
 
)     No. SC90988 
                                                        
 
) 
COLONEL JERRY LEE and                          
) 
COLONEL RON REPLOGLE, 
 
 
) 
                           Respondents.              
 
) 
 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY 
The Honorable Dale Hood, Judge 
 
Opinion issued January 11, 2011 
 
PER CURIAM1
 
Overview 
 
Joseph Williams pleaded guilty to two violations of the Code of Military Justice.  
Although not required to register under section 589.400 et seq., RSMo 2000, at the time 
he pleaded guilty, Williams later received a notice of a change in Missouri statutes that 
required registration.  He registered, but filed suit to have the court declare that the 
change in the state law was not applicable to him.  The trial court sustained a motion to 
dismiss the suit without specifying that the dismissal was with prejudice.  Under Rule 
                                             
 
1 This Court transferred the case after opinion by the court of appeals authored by the Honorable 
Roy L. Richter.  Portions of that opinion are used without further attribution.  This Court has 
jurisdiction.  Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10. 
 
67.03, such a dismissal is without prejudice.  Under the facts of this case, the dismissal 
without prejudice is not appealable.  The appeal is dismissed. 
Facts 
In 2000, Williams pleaded guilty in a military tribunal to two specifications of 
violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  At the time he pleaded guilty, neither 
Missouri statute nor federal law required Williams to register.  
In 2002, Missouri law was changed to include Williams in the class of offenders 
required to register.  See section 589.400.1(5), RSMo Supp. 2002.  Williams registered, 
but in 2009 filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that he was not required to 
register and seeking expungement of records.    
The defendants responded that Williams failed to state a claim as well as asserting 
other defenses.  A motion to dismiss was filed.  After consideration, the court sustained 
the motion to dismiss without specifying that the dismissal was with prejudice.  Williams 
appeals. 
Discussion 
Rule 67.03 provides that "[a]ny involuntary dismissal shall be without prejudice 
unless the court in its order for dismissal shall otherwise specify."  Pursuant to that rule, 
Williams' dismissal was without prejudice.   The general rule is that a dismissal without 
prejudice is not a final judgment and, therefore, is not appealable.  Chromalloy American 
Corp. v. Elyria Foundry Co., 955 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 1997).  An appeal from such a 
dismissal can be taken where the dismissal has the practical effect of terminating the 
litigation in the form cast or in the plaintiff's chosen forum.  Id.  The parties agree that in 
this case the dismissal had no such effect.2
Conclusion 
The appeal is dismissed. 
 
All concur. 
                                             
 
2 Rule 67.06 provides that on sustaining a motion to dismiss a claim, the court shall freely grant 
leave to amend and shall specify the time within which the amendment shall be made or 
amended pleading filed.  No such leave was requested or granted.  The parties agree that 
Williams should be permitted to amend his petition.  As the appeal is dismissed, and under the 
facts of this case, Williams may seek such leave in the trial court, which shall be freely granted. 
Compare Jordan v. City of Kansas City, 972 S.W.2d 319, 322-23 (Mo. App. 1998). 
 
3