Davis v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Davis v. State

943 S.W.2d 313, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 615, 1997 WL 160318

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 8, 1997·No. No. 71261·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Roland Davis (“movant”), appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief because it was untimely filed. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. The time limits of Rule 24.035 have been found constitutionally sound. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692 (Mo.banc 1989). As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the motion court 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.

Appellant, Roland Davis (“movant”), appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief because it was untimely filed. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. The time limits of Rule 24.035 have been found constitutionally sound. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692 (Mo.banc 1989). As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Davis v. State, 943 S.W.2d 313, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 615, 1997 WL 160318 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

943 S.W.2d 313 (Davis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related