Goldsby v. Lombardi, 559 S.W.3d 878

Goldsby filed a notice of appeal within ten days of final judgment (filed Aug 5, 2016 after final judgment July 27, 2016), but did not timely pay the docket fee with the notice.
The trial clerk accepted the notice only after Goldsby paid the docket fee 11 days after judgment; the appellate court dismissed the appeal as untimely for lack of timely payment.
Goldsby sought a declaratory judgment requiring the Department of Corrections (DOC) to set a release date for his life sentence based on an historical “three‑fourths rule” that he alleges applied when he committed his offense in 1972.
DOC argued (and the court agreed) that the three‑fourths rule did not apply to life sentences after statutory revisions and precedents, so no fixed release date is required; DOC has scheduled a parole hearing date instead.
The court addressed two legal questions: (1) whether failure to pay the docket fee with the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional defect that renders the notice ineffective, and (2) whether the three‑fourths rule requires DOC to set a release date for Goldsby’s life sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether payment of the docket fee with the notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an effective notice of appeal	Goldsby: His notice was timely filed within 10 days; fee is procedural and his later payment should not defeat appellate jurisdiction	DOC/Appellate courts: Rule 81.04 required fee/statement/motion with notice; failure to include it makes notice ineffective and untimely	Court: Fee is not jurisdictional after 1997 amendment to §512.050; timely notice (filed Aug 5) was effective and Rule 84.08 remedies apply (notice and 15 days to cure)
Whether DOC must set a release date for Goldsby’s life sentence under the historical three‑fourths rule (§216.355 and predecessors)	Goldsby: He committed the offense in 1972 when earlier versions applied; he asserts a 15‑year or mathematical conversion gives a term‑of‑years release date	DOC: The three‑fourths rule historically and by precedent does not apply to life sentences now; later statutes and case law eliminate any entitlement to a release date for life sentences	Court: Goldsby not entitled to a release date; three‑fourths rule did not apply to life sentences after 1879 revisions and related precedents, so DOC has no duty to set a release date

State ex rel. JCA Architects, Inc. v. Schmidt, 751 S.W.2d 756 (Mo. banc 1988) (legislature sets statutory prerequisites to appeal; courts may not add jurisdictional requirements)
Ex parte Collins, 6 S.W. 345 (Mo. 1887) (three‑fourths rule relates only to determinate terms and cannot be applied to life sentences)
Hunter v. Hunter, 237 S.W.2d 100 (Mo. 1951) (reaffirmed Collins: three‑fourths rule no longer applied to life convicts after 1879 revision)
Parrish v. Wyrick, 589 S.W.2d 74 (Mo. App. 1979) (discussing operation and limitations of the three‑fourths rule)