Case Name: Mario Derell AMERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-12-16
Citations: 963 S.W.2d 305
Docket Number: No. 72183
Parties: Mario Derell AMERSON, 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: 963
Pages: 305–306

Head Matter:
Mario Derell AMERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 72183.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Dec. 16, 1997.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 9, 1998.
Application for Transfer Denied March 24, 1998.
Dave Hemingway, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Angel M. Woodruff, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant pled guilty to three counts of felony stealing in violation of section 670.040, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced him to three concurrent seven year terms. Defendant was delivered to the department of corrections on April 5, 1996.
On July 10, 1996, defendant filed his Rule 24.035 motion. The motion court denied the motion as untimely and defendant appeals.
Defendant's motion was properly denied. He did not file it within the 90-day time limit imposed by Rule 24.035(b). This time limit is mandatory, and the supreme court has held it to be constitutionally valid and reasonable. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo.banc 1989).
The motion court's judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).
The motion court's judgment is affirmed.