Young v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Young v. State

28 S.W.3d 464, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1471, 2000 WL 1508843

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 3, 2000

DocketNo. ED 77733

StatusPublished

This text of 28 S.W.3d 464 (Young 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

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

Pincite

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

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 S.W.3d 464, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1471, 2000 WL 1508843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-moctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack