Case Name: James Irvin WADE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-04-21
Citations: 966 S.W.2d 408
Docket Number: No. 72780
Parties: James Irvin WADE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 966
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
James Irvin WADE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 72780.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
April 21, 1998.
Susan L. Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Karen L. Kramer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
James Wade, Movant, appeals the judgment dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. Movant concedes that his Rule 24.035 motion was untimely in that he did not file it within 90 days after he was delivered to the Missouri Department of Corrections. However, he challenges the constitutionality of Rule 24.035 time requirements. The Missouri Supreme Court has held that the time limits in Rule 24.035 are constitutional and mandatory. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc. 1989), cert. denied sub nom. Walker v. Missouri, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989).
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 24.035(k); State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 16 (Mo. banc 1992). An Extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).