Reading v. State
Reading v. State
959 S.W.2d 946; 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 162; 1998 WL 25470
(South Western Reporter, Second Series)
Reading v. State
Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Movant appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record provided on appeal and we conclude the motion court’s finding is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.