Wilson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wilson v. State

806 S.W.2d 475, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 224, 1991 WL 15425

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 1991

DocketNo. 58826

StatusPublished

This text of 806 S.W.2d 475 (Wilson 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

Wilson v. State, 806 S.W.2d 475, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 224, 1991 WL 15425 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. On October 5, 1989, the court sentenced movant as to prior and persistent offender to seven years imprisonment on his plea of guilty to the felony of robbery in the second degree, § 569.030 RSMo 1986. He was delivered to the department of corrections on October 6,1989. On March 1, 1990, movant filed a pro se motion. The motion was untimely because it was filed more than ninety days after movant was delivered to the department of corrections. Rule 24.035(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. 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 denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. On October 5, 1989, the court sentenced movant as to prior and persistent offender to seven years imprisonment on his plea of guilty to the felony of robbery in the second degree, § 569.030 RSMo 1986. He was delivered to the department of corrections on October 6,1989. On March 1, 1990, movant filed a pro se motion. The motion was untimely because it was filed more than ninety days after movant was delivered to the department of corrections. Rule 24.035(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. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

806 S.W.2d 475, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 224, 1991 WL 15425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-state-moctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack