Gray v. State, 984 S.W.2d 564 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Gray v. State, 984 S.W.2d 564 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Angela M. GRAY
v.
STATE of Missouri
No. 74340.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Jan 19, 1999.
984 S.W.2d 564
1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 68
1999 WL 16466
Paul Yarns, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant., Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kevin F. Hennessey, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Crahan, Dowd, Teitelman.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant Angela M. Gray appeals from the judgment dismissing her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. She acknowledges that her motion was untimely under Rule 24.035(b), but 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). 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). Further, the Missouri Supreme Court has held they do not operate as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. White v. State, 779 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Mo. banc 1989). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We[*565] affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).