Case Name: Cindy LAUDENSLAGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-02-23
Citations: 986 S.W.2d 926
Docket Number: No. 74253
Parties: Cindy LAUDENSLAGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: BEFORE: PAUL J. SIMON, P.J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 986
Pages: 926–927

Head Matter:
Cindy LAUDENSLAGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 74253.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Feb. 23, 1999.
Paul Yarns, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Anne E. Hawley, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
BEFORE: PAUL J. SIMON, P.J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PER CURIAM.
Cindy Laudenslager, Movant, appeals the judgment dismissing her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. Mov-ant acknowledges that her pro se motion was untimely because she did not file it within 90 days after her delivery to the Missouri Department of Corrections as required by Rule 24.035(b). However, she challenges the constitutionality of the absolute filing deadline imposed by rule 24.035. The Missouri Supreme Court has addressed this issue and 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). Therefore, Movant's point is without merit.
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. bane 1992). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).