Cantrell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cantrell v. State

858 S.W.2d 874, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1282, 1993 WL 308947

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 17, 1993·No. No. 63418·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the dismissal, for untimely filing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the dismissal, for untimely filing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). .

Cantrell v. State, 858 S.W.2d 874, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1282, 1993 WL 308947 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

858 S.W.2d 874 (Cantrell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.