Case Name: John G. HANEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1995-06-20
Citations: 903 S.W.2d 221
Docket Number: No. 67340
Parties: John G. HANEY, 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: 903
Pages: 221–222

Head Matter:
John G. HANEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 67340.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
June 20, 1995.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 27, 1995.
David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, John G. Haney, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Appellant's motion attacked neither his conviction nor his sentence, but rather attacked the legality of the circuit court's revocation of his probation. A Rule 24.035 motion is not the proper procedure by which to challenge the legality of a court's revocation of probation. Wood v. State, 853 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). The adoption of Rule 24.035 in place of Rule 27.26 does not change this rule. Id. The circuit court did not clearly err in dismissing appellant's Rule 24.035 motion. Because an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court's judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).