Nobles v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nobles v. State

837 S.W.2d 46, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1504, 1992 WL 230220

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 22, 1992·No. No. 61476·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals following dismissal 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 rea[47]*47sons for our 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 following dismissal 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 rea[47]*47sons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Nobles v. State, 837 S.W.2d 46, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1504, 1992 WL 230220 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

837 S.W.2d 46 (Nobles v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.