Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kevin IVORY, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-06-07
Citations: 493 S.W.3d 16
Docket Number: No. ED 103689
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kevin IVORY, Appellant.
Judges: Philip M. Hess, J., concurs.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 493
Pages: 16–17

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kevin IVORY, Appellant.
No. ED 103689
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
FILED: June 7, 2016
Kevin Ivory (Pro se), 2727 Highway K, ERDCC, Bonne Terre, MO 63628, for appellant.
Chris Koster, P.O.- Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Opinion:
KURT S. ODENWALD, Judge
Introduction''
Appellant Kevin. Ivory ("Ivory") appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying Ivory's writ of mandamus. Ivory was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. On appeal, Ivory contends that the trial court erred in denying his writ of mandamus.Because there was no final appealable judgment from the trial court, Ivory's appeal is dismissed.
Factual and Procedural History
Ivory was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action in connection with an incident on June 19, 1993. On May 27, 1994, Ivory was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of probation or parole on the murder charge, and thirty years' imprisonment on the armed criminal action charge. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. Ivory subséquently filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied by the motion court. This Court affirmed the judgment of the motion court.
On September 18, 2015, Ivory filed a writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis asking the trial court to vacate his convictions or grant an evi-dentiary hearing based on. an alleged "fatal variance" between the charging documents and the verdict directing instructions. The trial court denied the writ of mandamus. This appeal follows.
Point on Appeal
In Ivory's sole point on appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his writ of mandamus.
Discussion
' Before we may address the merits of Ivory's appeal, we must first determine whether we have authority to entertain this appeal. Powell v. Dep't of Corrections, 463 S.W.3d 838, 840 (Mo.App.W.D.2015). We have a duty to determine, sua sponte, whether the trial court entered a final appealable judgment before we may undertake substantive review of the issues presented on appeal. Banks v. Slay, 410 S.W.3d 767, 768 (Mo.App.E.D.2013).
"Generally, when" the [trial] court denies a petition for writ of mandamus, the petitioner's proper course of action is not to appeal the denial but to file the writ in a higher court." Powell, 463 S.W.3d at 840. An appeal is a proper and available remedy only in those eases requesting the issuance of a writ "where a preliminary order is granted and the court then determines on the merits whether the writ should be made permanent, or quashed," State ex rel. Tivol Plaza, Inc. v. Missouri Comm'n on Human Rights, — S.W.3d-,-, 2016 WL 1435970, at *2 (Mo.App.W.D. Apr. 12, 2016), or in cases where the trial court "issues a summons, the functional equivalent of a preliminary order, and then denies a permanent writ." U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs v. Boresi, 396 S.W.3d 356, 359 (Mo. banc 2013). Thus, when there has been no summons or preliminary order and the writ of mandamus is denied by the trial court, there is no final appealable judgment. Id.
Here, the trial court denied Ivory's writ of mandamus and did not enter a summons' or a preliminary order, meaning that the trial court did" not enter a final appealable judgment. " Accordingly, we have no authority to entertain Ivory's appeal. Ivory's correct course of action after the denial of his writ of mandamus was to file a writ of mandamus in the next higher court. Powell, 463 S.W.3d at 841. Because we do not have authority to enterr tain Ivory's appeal from a judgment that was not final, his appeal is dismissed.
Conclusion
The appeal is dismissed. ,
Philip M. Hess, J., concurs.
Lisa P. Page, J., concurs.