Powers v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Powers v. State

823 S.W.2d 6, 1991 WL 142334

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 30, 1991·No. No. 59526·Published

Opinion

ORDER

Movant appeals from the denial of his untimely pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. It is well-settled that the time limitations in Rule 24.035 are both valid and mandatory. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. den., 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989). Thus no error of law appears and an extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

Movant appeals from the denial of his untimely pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. It is well-settled that the time limitations in Rule 24.035 are both valid and mandatory. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. den., 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989). Thus no error of law appears and an extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Powers v. State, 823 S.W.2d 6, 1991 WL 142334 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

823 S.W.2d 6 (Powers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related