Court Opinion

ID: 9691269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:20:24.344039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:14.828916
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. Rule 29.11(g) provides that the trial court has 90 days to determine whether to grant or deny a new trial otherwise the motion is “denied for all purposes.”
Baker filed his motion for a new trial on April 16, 2003. The trial court did not rule on it until September 11, 2003. After July 15, 2003, however, the motion was deemed “denied for all purposes” because of the expiration of the 90 day deadline in Rule 29.11(g). The trial court accordingly lacked authority after that date to order a new trial. See State ex rel. Parks v. Barker, 567 S.W.2d 130, 133 (Mo. banc 1978) (under rule comparable to 29.11(g), “since the granting of a new trial ... was beyond the time given the trial court for such action, the action was beyond the court’s jurisdiction and prohibition [was] a proper remedy”).
As the preliminary writ states, the only act that the trial court had authority to take after the expiration of 90 days was “to impose sentence in said case.” At this time, it is unnecessary to go further than to make the preliminary writ, as written, absolute.