From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Draine v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR
Apr 21, 1998
964 S.W.2d 885 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

No. 73019

OPINION FILED: April 21, 1998

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS CITY, HONORABLE STEVEN OHMER, JUDGE.

Susan McGraugh, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for movant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon Atty. Gen., Karen L. Kramer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J. and Paul J. Simon, J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.; concurring.



ORDER


Rubin Draine, Movant, appeals the judgment dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. Movant concedes that his Rule 24.035 motion was untimely in that he did not file it within ninety days after he was delivered to the Missouri Department of Corrections. However, he challenges the constitutionality of Rule 24.035 time requirements. 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).

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


Summaries of

Draine v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR
Apr 21, 1998
964 S.W.2d 885 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Draine v. State

Case Details

Full title:RUBIN DRAINE, MOVANT, vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Apr 21, 1998

Citations

964 S.W.2d 885 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)