Case ID: sw2d_959/html/0936-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christopher GREGORY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. 72440.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Jan. 20, 1998.
    S. Paige Canfield, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cristi A. Ingalsbe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.085 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).