Granberry v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Granberry v. State

143 S.W.3d 708, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1319, 2004 WL 2033051

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 14, 2004

DocketNo. ED 83617

StatusPublished

This text of 143 S.W.3d 708 (Granberry 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

Granberry v. State, 143 S.W.3d 708, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1319, 2004 WL 2033051 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James E. Granberry (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief pursuant to Movant’s Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant pleaded guilty to one count of a class B felony of violence or injury to others while an inmate in a correctional facility, Section 217.385, RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment to run consecutive to a previous sentence. Movant contends the motion court erred denying his Rule 24.035 motion for lack of jurisdiction because Movant’s mental condition constituted cause for the failure to timely file his motion and Movant thereby incurred actual prejudice.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. Movant did not timely file his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief and the failure to file a timely motion constitutes a complete waiver of any right to proceed under the rule. Anderson v. State, 41 S.W.3d 16, 17 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James E. Granberry (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief pursuant to Movant’s Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant pleaded guilty to one count of a class B felony of violence or injury to others while an inmate in a correctional facility, Section 217.385, RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment to run consecutive to a previous sentence. Movant contends the motion court erred denying his Rule 24.035 motion for lack of jurisdiction because Movant’s mental condition constituted cause for the failure to timely file his motion and Movant thereby incurred actual prejudice.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. Movant did not timely file his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief and the failure to file a timely motion constitutes a complete waiver of any right to proceed under the rule. Anderson v. State, 41 S.W.3d 16, 17 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.W.3d 708, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1319, 2004 WL 2033051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/granberry-v-state-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack