Hardy v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hardy v. State

963 S.W.2d 475, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 430, 1998 WL 109830

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 10, 1998

DocketNo. 72630

StatusPublished

This text of 963 S.W.2d 475 (Hardy 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

Hardy v. State, 963 S.W.2d 475, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 430, 1998 WL 109830 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. He concedes his motion was filed out of time. 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); State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 16 (Mo. banc 1992). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm 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 appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. He concedes his motion was filed out of time. 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); State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 16 (Mo. banc 1992). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

963 S.W.2d 475, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 430, 1998 WL 109830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardy-v-state-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack