Shepherd v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Shepherd v. State

922 S.W.2d 441, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 871, 1996 WL 278832

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 21, 1996

DocketNo. 69525

StatusPublished

This text of 922 S.W.2d 441 (Shepherd 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

Shepherd v. State, 922 S.W.2d 441, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 871, 1996 WL 278832 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted movant of possession of a controlled substance and receiving stolen property. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent fourteen year terms. In an opinion handed down on July 18, 1995, this court affirmed. State v. Shepherd, 903 S.W.2d 230 (Mo.App.E.D.1995).

Movant did not file his pro se Rule 29.15 motion until August 28,1995, six weeks after the direct appeal opinion. When a direct appeal is taken, Rule 29.15(b) requires the motion to be filed “within thirty days after the filing of the transcript” in the direct appeal.

The motion court dismissed movant’s Rule 29.15 motion as untimely filed. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. banc 1989). No error of law appears.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The motion court’s judgment is affirmed.

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