Case Name: Raymond WICKERHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1995-05-30
Citations: 899 S.W.2d 155
Docket Number: No. 66768
Parties: Raymond WICKERHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 899
Pages: 155–156

Head Matter:
Raymond WICKERHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 66768.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
May 30, 1995.
Barbara Hoppe, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court denied the motion as untimely.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Defendant's sole point on appeal concerns a claim challenging the time limitations for Rule 24.035 motions. The Missouri Supreme Court in Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989) upheld the post-conviction filing restrictions as valid and mandatory. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).