King v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

King v. State

188 S.W.3d 1, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1934, 2005 WL 3527663

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 27, 2005·No. ED 85958·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John King, movant, appeals from a judgment dismissing his second Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely filed. 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 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. 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.

John King, movant, appeals from a judgment dismissing his second Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely filed. 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 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

King v. State, 188 S.W.3d 1, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1934, 2005 WL 3527663 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

188 S.W.3d 1 (King v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.