Moore v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moore v. State

927 S.W.2d 553, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1259, 1996 WL 396803

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 16, 1996

DocketNo. 69535

StatusPublished

This text of 927 S.W.2d 553 (Moore 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

Moore v. State, 927 S.W.2d 553, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1259, 1996 WL 396803 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1994, and distribution of a controlled substance near a school, § 195.214, RSMo 1994. Movant was sentenced to concurrent terms of seven and thirty years’ imprisonment, respectively. He was delivered to the custody of the Department of Corrections on June 6, 1993. On May 17, 1995, Movant filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied as untimely.

On appeal Movant contends the mandatory time limits of Rule 24.035 violate due process rights as well as rights contained in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. We deny Movant’s appeal. 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).

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 pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1994, and distribution of a controlled substance near a school, § 195.214, RSMo 1994. Movant was sentenced to concurrent terms of seven and thirty years’ imprisonment, respectively. He was delivered to the custody of the Department of Corrections on June 6, 1993. On May 17, 1995, Movant filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied as untimely.

On appeal Movant contends the mandatory time limits of Rule 24.035 violate due process rights as well as rights contained in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. We deny Movant’s appeal. 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).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

927 S.W.2d 553, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1259, 1996 WL 396803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack