Gunn v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gunn v. State

967 S.W.2d 314, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 915, 1998 WL 234194

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 12, 1998

DocketNo. 73492

StatusPublished

This text of 967 S.W.2d 314 (Gunn 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

Gunn v. State, 967 S.W.2d 314, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 915, 1998 WL 234194 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

■ George Gunn (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. The trial court found the motion filed out of time.

Movant was convicted of receiving stolen property after a bench trial. He filed his pro se motion on August 25, 1997, one hundred and thirty-one days after being delivered to the custody of the Department of Corrections.

Movant claims the untimeliness of his motion should be excused because, for a time, [315]*315he was without access to legal assistance or legal materials. Further, Movant alleged the time limits set out in Rule 29.15 are unconstitutional. Such arguments have been repeatedly rejected by the Missouri Supreme Court and this court. See Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989); State v. Woltering, 810 S.W.2d 584, 589 (Mo.App. 1991); State v. Johnson, 907 S.W.2d 311, 313 (Mo.App.1995).

The judgment is affirmed.

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