Woodward v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Woodward v. State

918 S.W.2d 302, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 382, 1996 WL 104434

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 12, 1996·No. No. 68532·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This court previously decided movant’s direct appeal. State v. Woodward, 895 S.W.2d 264 (Mo.App.E.D.1995). The transcript for the direct appeal was filed on March 11, 1994. On April 24, 1995, over one month after we decided the direct appeal movant filed a pro se motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15. Accordingly, the pro se motion was untimely. Rule 24.035(b). The motion court dismissed the motion. The dismissal was mandatory. “The time limitations contained in Rules 24.035 and 29.15 are valid and mandatory.” Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). The dismissal is affirmed.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This court previously decided movant’s direct appeal. State v. Woodward, 895 S.W.2d 264 (Mo.App.E.D.1995). The transcript for the direct appeal was filed on March 11, 1994. On April 24, 1995, over one month after we decided the direct appeal movant filed a pro se motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15. Accordingly, the pro se motion was untimely. Rule 24.035(b). The motion court dismissed the motion. The dismissal was mandatory. “The time limitations contained in Rules 24.035 and 29.15 are valid and mandatory.” Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). The dismissal is affirmed.

Woodward v. State, 918 S.W.2d 302, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 382, 1996 WL 104434 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

918 S.W.2d 302 (Woodward v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related