Joseph v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Joseph v. State

903 S.W.2d 575, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1022, 1995 WL 319229

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 30, 1995

DocketNo. 67063

StatusPublished

This text of 903 S.W.2d 575 (Joseph 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

Joseph v. State, 903 S.W.2d 575, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1022, 1995 WL 319229 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1994. Movant was sentenced to a three year term of imprisonment. He was delivered to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections on October 14,1993. He filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief on March 7, 1994, which was denied as untimely.

On appeal, movant contends the mandatory time limits of Rule 24.035 violate due process, equal protection and federal habeas corpus rights. We deny movant’s point. The time constraints of Rule 24.035 are constitutionally valid and are mandatory by their terms. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). The constraints do not violate the rights of due process or equal protection. Dwyer v. State, 781 S.W.2d 574 (Mo.App.1989). They do not constitute a suspension of the right to relief under habeas corpus. White v. State, 779 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Mo. banc 1989).

Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1994. Movant was sentenced to a three year term of imprisonment. He was delivered to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections on October 14,1993. He filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief on March 7, 1994, which was denied as untimely.

On appeal, movant contends the mandatory time limits of Rule 24.035 violate due process, equal protection and federal habeas corpus rights. We deny movant’s point. The time constraints of Rule 24.035 are constitutionally valid and are mandatory by their terms. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). The constraints do not violate the rights of due process or equal protection. Dwyer v. State, 781 S.W.2d 574 (Mo.App.1989). They do not constitute a suspension of the right to relief under habeas corpus. White v. State, 779 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Mo. banc 1989).

Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

903 S.W.2d 575, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1022, 1995 WL 319229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-state-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack