Case ID: sw2d_867/html/0720-02.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

Willie HOSKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. 63149.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Jan. 11, 1994.
    Willie Hoskins, pro se.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

We find the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s motion for postcon-viction relief as successive and untimely. Rule 29.15(k) and (m). We further find an opinion in this case would have no prece-dential purpose and affirm by written order. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum has been issued to the parties for their use only.