Shigemura v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Shigemura v. State

800 S.W.2d 772, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1659, 1990 WL 175727

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 13, 1990·No. No. 58029·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Facts regarding mov-ant’s trial and sentencing are found in State v. Shigemura, 768 S.W.2d 620 (Mo.App.1989). (Conviction affirmed on March 28, 1989). On November 22, 1989, movant filed a pro se motion. The motion was untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after movant filed the transcript in his direct appeal. Rule 29.15(b). Movant’s motion is time barred by the provisions of the rule. See Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989).

We affirm.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Facts regarding mov-ant’s trial and sentencing are found in State v. Shigemura, 768 S.W.2d 620 (Mo.App.1989). (Conviction affirmed on March 28, 1989). On November 22, 1989, movant filed a pro se motion. The motion was untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after movant filed the transcript in his direct appeal. Rule 29.15(b). Movant’s motion is time barred by the provisions of the rule. See Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989).

We affirm.

Shigemura v. State, 800 S.W.2d 772, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1659, 1990 WL 175727 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

800 S.W.2d 772 (Shigemura v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related