Case Name: John KING, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-12-27
Citations: 188 S.W.3d 1
Docket Number: No. ED 85958
Parties: John KING, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 188
Pages: 1–1

Head Matter:
John KING, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 85958.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Dec. 27, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 21, 2006.
Application for Transfer Denied May 2, 2006.
John King # 504822, Charleston, MO, appellant acting pro se.
Dora A. Fiehter, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
John King, movant, appeals from a judgment dismissing his second Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely filed. 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 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).