Odle v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Odle v. State

907 S.W.2d 382, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1692, 1995 WL 594916

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 10, 1995

DocketNo. 68137

StatusPublished

This text of 907 S.W.2d 382 (Odle 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

Odle v. State, 907 S.W.2d 382, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1692, 1995 WL 594916 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the motion court’s dismissal, for untimely filing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Movant’s motion was filed well past the filing deadline. There is no merit to his contention that the time limitation of Rule 24.035(b) operated to arbitrarily deny him his right to due process. The time limitation of Rule 24.035(b) is reasonable, constitutionally valid, and mandatory by its terms. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied sub nom., Walker v. Missouri, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989). The time limitation does not violate movant’s right to due process or equal protection. Kendrick v. State, 804 S.W.2d 386, 387 (Mo.App.1991).

No error of law appears, and no prece-dential value would be served by further opinion. 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 motion court’s dismissal, for untimely filing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Movant’s motion was filed well past the filing deadline. There is no merit to his contention that the time limitation of Rule 24.035(b) operated to arbitrarily deny him his right to due process. The time limitation of Rule 24.035(b) is reasonable, constitutionally valid, and mandatory by its terms. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied sub nom., Walker v. Missouri, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989). The time limitation does not violate movant’s right to due process or equal protection. Kendrick v. State, 804 S.W.2d 386, 387 (Mo.App.1991).

No error of law appears, and no prece-dential value would be served by further opinion. 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

907 S.W.2d 382, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1692, 1995 WL 594916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odle-v-state-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack