Curl v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Curl v. State

873 S.W.2d 655, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 588, 1994 WL 113730

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 7, 1994

DocketNo. 19036

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 873 S.W.2d 655 (Curl v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curl v. State, 873 S.W.2d 655, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 588, 1994 WL 113730 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kristopher Todd Curl (movant) pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree, § 569.-020¹ (Count I), and armed criminal action, § 571.015.1 (Count II). He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 15 years for Count I and 3 years for Count II. Following incarceration, movant filed a Rule 24.035 motion in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri. The trial court dismissed movant’s motion without an evidentiary hearing because it was not filed within the time prescribed by Rule 24.035(b). This court affirms.

Movant presents one point on appeal. He contends the trial court erred in dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion “because the absolute deadline imposed by Rule 24.035(b) operated to arbitrarily deny [movant] his right to due process ... in that the rule makes no provision for the late filing of a postconviction motion for good cause shown.”

The pertinent provision of Rule 24.035(b) states:

The motion shall be filed within ninety days after the movant is delivered to the custody of the department of corrections. Failure to file a motion within the time provided by this Rule 24.035 shall constitute a complete waiver of any right to proceed under this Rule 24.035.

“The time limitations of Rule 24.035 have withstood constitutional scrutiny. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc), cert. denied sub nom. Walker v. Missouri, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989).” State v. Vidal, 843 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Mo.App.1992).

No error of law appears. Further opinion would have no precedential value. The order of the trial court dismissing movant’s Rule 24.035 motion is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kristopher Todd Curl (movant) pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree, § 569.-020¹ (Count I), and armed criminal action, § 571.015.1 (Count II). He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 15 years for Count I and 3 years for Count II. Following incarceration, movant filed a Rule 24.035 motion in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri. The trial court dismissed movant’s motion without an evidentiary hearing because it was not filed within the time prescribed by Rule 24.035(b). This court affirms.

Movant presents one point on appeal. He contends the trial court erred in dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion “because the absolute deadline imposed by Rule 24.035(b) operated to arbitrarily deny [movant] his right to due process ... in that the rule makes no provision for the late filing of a postconviction motion for good cause shown.”

The pertinent provision of Rule 24.035(b) states:

The motion shall be filed within ninety days after the movant is delivered to the custody of the department of corrections. Failure to file a motion within the time provided by this Rule 24.035 shall constitute a complete waiver of any right to proceed under this Rule 24.035.

“The time limitations of Rule 24.035 have withstood constitutional scrutiny. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc), cert. denied sub nom. Walker v. Missouri, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989).” State v. Vidal, 843 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Mo.App.1992).

No error of law appears. Further opinion would have no precedential value. The order of the trial court dismissing movant’s Rule 24.035 motion is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

873 S.W.2d 655, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 588, 1994 WL 113730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curl-v-state-moctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack