McMullin v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McMullin v. State

864 S.W.2d 435, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1782, 1993 WL 453625

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 9, 1993·No. No. 63862·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely filed. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming 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 from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely filed. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b).

McMullin v. State, 864 S.W.2d 435, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1782, 1993 WL 453625 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

864 S.W.2d 435 (McMullin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.