Lee v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lee v. State

930 S.W.2d 479, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1624, 1996 WL 553863

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lee v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1771 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 1, 1996·No. No. 70253·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The motion court found that he failed to file his motion within ninety days of his delivery to the department of corrections, Rule 24.035(b). Movant alleges that the time limits of Rule 24.035 are unconstitutional. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 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 from the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The motion court found that he failed to file his motion within ninety days of his delivery to the department of corrections, Rule 24.035(b). Movant alleges that the time limits of Rule 24.035 are unconstitutional. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Lee v. State, 930 S.W.2d 479, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1624, 1996 WL 553863 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

930 S.W.2d 479 (Lee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.