Rogers v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rogers v. State

873 S.W.2d 334, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 559, 1994 WL 109461

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rogers v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 785 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 5, 1994·No. No. 64987·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Anthony M. Rogers, appeals from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County’s dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings and conclusions of the circuit court are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s order pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). A memorandum solely for the use the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Anthony M. Rogers, appeals from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County’s dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings and conclusions of the circuit court are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s order pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). A memorandum solely for the use the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

Rogers v. State, 873 S.W.2d 334, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 559, 1994 WL 109461 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

873 S.W.2d 334 (Rogers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.