Missouri Court of Appeals, 1998

Bobo v. State

Bobo v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided December 22, 1998 · Crane, Mooney, Simon
982 S.W.2d 818; 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2248; 1998 WL 928860 (South Western Reporter, Second Series)

Bobo v. State

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.