Young v. State

28 S.W.3d 464, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1471, 2000 WL 1508843
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 3, 2000·No. No. ED 77733·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Young (Movant) appeals the judgment dismissing his Rule 29.15 motion as untimely. He acknowledges his motion was filed out of time, but he challenges the constitutionality of the Rule 29.15 time requirements.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). The Missouri Supreme Court has held that the time limits in Rule 29.15 are constitutional and mandatory. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied sub nom. Walker v. Missouri, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989). Rule 29.15 makes no provision for an excuse for an untimely filing. Smith v. State, 798 S.W.2d 152,153 (Mo. banc 1990).

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Young v. State, 28 S.W.3d 464, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1471, 2000 WL 1508843 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

28 S.W.3d 464 (Young v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Day v. State
770 S.W.2d 692 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1989)
Smith v. State
798 S.W.2d 152 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1990)
Jacobowitz v. United States
493 U.S. 866 (Supreme Court, 1989)