Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

188 S.W.3d 1

King v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided December 27, 2005

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2005-12-27

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 2008

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2005-12-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2 John King, movant, appeals from a judgment dismissing his second Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely filed. 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 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

/188/sw3d/1 · .json · Public domain