Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Edward V. LAWRENCE, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-11-24
Citations: 477 S.W.3d 170
Docket Number: No. ED 102991
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Edward V. LAWRENCE, Appellant.
Judges: Mary K. Hoff, J. and Roy Li Richter, J., concur.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 477
Pages: 170–170

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Edward V. LAWRENCE, Appellant.
No. ED 102991
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
Filed: November 24, 2015
Edward V. Lawrence, Pro Se, # 150815, J.C.C.C., H.U. 28-115, 8200 No More'Victims Road, Jefferson City, MO 65101, Attorney for Appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Dora A. Fichter, Asst. Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, Attorneys for Respondent.

Opinion:
ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., Presiding Judge
Edward Lawrence was convicted of a double homicide in 1984 and sentenced to life imprisonment -without parole for capital murder and to a consecutive term of life imprisonment for first-degree murder. Our court affirmed his conviction and sentence in State v. Lawrence, 700 S.W.2d 111 (Mo.App.E.D. 1985), denied him post-conviction relief in Lawrence v. State, 750 S.W.2d 505 (Mo.App.E.D. 1988), affirmed the denial of his first motion for a nunc pro tunc order in State v. Lawrence, 33 S.W.3d 587 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000) and dismissed his untimely appeal from the denial of his second motion for a nunc pro tunc order in State v, Lawrence, 139 S.W.3d 573 (Mo.App.E.D. 2004). He now appeals from the denial of a motion he filed to set aside the judgment-under Rule 29.12(b) for manifest injustice relating to alleged discovery violations at his 1984 trial.
Rule 29.12(b) does not provide an independent basis under which a person convicted of a crime can subsequently challenge his conviction or sentence. See Vernor v. State, 30 S.W.3d 196, 197 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000) and progeny. Without an independent basis for Lawrence's motion, there is not an appealable judgment. See State v. McGee, 417 S.W.3d 260, 261 (Mo.App.E.D. 2013). Therefore, we must dismiss the appeal. See id.
The appeal is dismissed. '
Mary K. Hoff, J. and Roy Li Richter, J., concur.