Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Joseph Logan, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joseph-logan-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-18759
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=18759
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=Joseph+Logan%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=24&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 24; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
Case Style:  Joseph Logan, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  55312
Handdown Date:  06/23/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court Of Jackson County, Hon. K. Preston Dean
Counsel for Appellant:  Andrew Schroeder
Counsel for Respondent:  Kevin Hennessey
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Howard, P.J., Breckenridge and Spinden, J.J., concur
Opinion:
ORDER
Joseph Logan appeals the circuit court's judgment to dismiss his motion for postconviction relief because it did not 
satisfy the filing deadline of Rule 24.035.  He challenges the deadline as unconstitutional.  We affirm the circuit court's 
judgment.  Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 866 (1989) (holding time limits of Rule 
24.035 to be valid and mandatory).  We enter this order 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.