From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bobo v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE
Dec 22, 1998
982 S.W.2d 818 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

No. ED 74512.

OPINION FILED: December 22, 1998.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS CITY, HONORABLE DAVID C. MASON, JUDGE.

Dave Hemingway, 1320 Market, Room 235, St. Louis, MO 63103, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, John Munson Morris, III, Kristin Marie Frazier, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Paul J. Simon, P.J., Kathianne Knaup Crane, and Lawrence E. Mooney, 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. 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

Bobo v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE
Dec 22, 1998
982 S.W.2d 818 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Bobo v. State

Case Details

Full title:DAVID BOBO, APPELLANT, vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Dec 22, 1998

Citations

982 S.W.2d 818 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)