McCollum v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McCollum v. State

792 S.W.2d 14, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 631, 1990 WL 50896

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 24, 1990·No. No. 56937·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William Oliver McCollum, appeals from the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely filed. We have reviewed appellant’s allegations of error, the entire record upon which they are based, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. We do not find the court’s action to be clearly erroneous and find that an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We, therefore, affirm the court’s dismissal of appellant’s motion pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, which sets forth the basis of the court’s decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William Oliver McCollum, appeals from the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely filed. We have reviewed appellant’s allegations of error, the entire record upon which they are based, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. We do not find the court’s action to be clearly erroneous and find that an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We, therefore, affirm the court’s dismissal of appellant’s motion pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, which sets forth the basis of the court’s decision.

McCollum v. State, 792 S.W.2d 14, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 631, 1990 WL 50896 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

792 S.W.2d 14 (McCollum v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.