Gray v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gray v. State

984 S.W.2d 564, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 68, 1999 WL 16466

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

DocketNo. 74340

StatusPublished

This text of 984 S.W.2d 564 (Gray 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

Gray v. State, 984 S.W.2d 564, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 68, 1999 WL 16466 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant Angela M. Gray appeals from the judgment dismissing her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. She acknowledges that her motion was untimely under Rule 24.035(b), but challenges the constitutionality of the Rule 24.035 time requirements.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). The Missouri Supreme Court has held that the time limits in Rule 24.035 are constitutional and mandatory. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied sub nom. Walker v. Missouri, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989). Further, the Missouri Supreme Court has held they do not operate as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. White v. State, 779 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Mo. banc 1989). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We [565]*565affirm 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 Angela M. Gray appeals from the judgment dismissing her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. She acknowledges that her motion was untimely under Rule 24.035(b), but challenges the constitutionality of the Rule 24.035 time requirements.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). The Missouri Supreme Court has held that the time limits in Rule 24.035 are constitutional and mandatory. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied sub nom. Walker v. Missouri, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989). Further, the Missouri Supreme Court has held they do not operate as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. White v. State, 779 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Mo. banc 1989). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We [565]*565affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

984 S.W.2d 564, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 68, 1999 WL 16466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-state-moctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack