From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Atkins v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE
Jun 16, 1998
969 S.W.2d 360 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

No. 73648

OPINION FILED: June 16, 1998

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, HONORABLE JAMES R. HARTENBACH.

Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Barbara K. Chesser, Jefferson City, for respondent.

BEFORE GRIMM, P.J., PUDLOWSKI AND GAERTNER, JJ.



ORDER


Movant appeals from the judgment dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. He acknowledges that his motion was filed out of time because he did not file it within 90 days after he was delivered to the Missouri Department of Corrections. Rule 24.035(b). However, he challenges the constitutionality of the Rule 24.035 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 24.035(k); State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 16 (Mo. banc 1992). The Missouri Supreme Court has held that the time limits in Rule 24.035 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).

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


Summaries of

Atkins v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE
Jun 16, 1998
969 S.W.2d 360 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Atkins v. State

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL ATKINS, APPELLANT vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE

Date published: Jun 16, 1998

Citations

969 S.W.2d 360 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)