Case Name: James HODGES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1989-09-19
Citations: 779 S.W.2d 646
Docket Number: No. 56243
Parties: James HODGES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 779
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
James HODGES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 56243.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Sept. 19, 1989.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 15, 1989.
Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 12, 1989.
Lucy G. Liggett, Asst. Public Defender, Clayton, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
On February 22, 1985, movant pleaded guilty to tampering in the first degree and four counts of sodomy. Sentencing was on April 19, 1985. Movant received seven years' imprisonment on the tampering in the first degree charge and eleven concurrent years' imprisonment on each of the sodomy charges. On September 14, 1988, movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion. Counsel was appointed and movant filed an amended motion. On January 3, 1989, movant's motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal movant alleges the time limitation imposed by Rule 24.035 is unconstitutional and his constitutional rights were violated because he was not provided with notice of the time limitation under Rule 29.07.
Our supreme court in Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 [1] (Mo. banc 1989), has already considered and rejected the issues presented by movant.
The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would serve no precedential value.
Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).