Deandre Jackson, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Deandre Jackson, Movant/
- Respondent
- State of Missouri·State of Missouri, Respondent/
Disposition
Affirmed
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Deandre Jackson, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent. Case Number: 73654 Handdown Date: 06/09/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Henry E. Autrey Counsel for Appellant: Gwenda R. Robinson Counsel for Respondent: Jill C. LaHue Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Knaup Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell and J. Dowd, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Movant Deandre Jackson appeals from the judgment dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. He acknowledges that his motion was filed outside the time limitations as set forth in Rule 24.035. However, he challenges the constitutionality of Rule 24.035, contending the absolute filing deadline imposed by Rule 24.035 violates his constitutional rights. This issue has been previously addressed by the Missouri Supreme Court, who 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). Therefore, movant's point on appeal is wholly without merit. The trial court did not clearly err in dismissing movant's Rule 24.035 motion as untimely. 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).
Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 24.035cited
Rule 24.035
- Rule 84.16cited
Rule 84.16
Cases
- day v state 770 sw2d 692cited
Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692
- state v blankenship 830 sw2d 1cited
State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1
- walker v missouri 493 us 866cited
Walker v. Missouri, 493 U.S. 866
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
Michael Atkins, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1998)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
James Irvin Wade, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1998)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Kent Travis Moss, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1998)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Eckie Hall, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1998)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Rubin Draine, Movant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1998)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Sandra Levy, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.(1998)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District