Case Name: Marcole REED, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1995-05-30
Citations: 903 S.W.2d 576
Docket Number: No. 67203
Parties: Marcole REED, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.
Judges: Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 903
Pages: 576–576

Head Matter:
Marcole REED, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.
No. 67203.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
May 30, 1995.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 14, 1996.
Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant pleaded guilty to illegal distribution/sale of a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo 1994. Movant was sentenced to an eight year term of imprisonment. He was delivered to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections on January 18,1994. He filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-convietion relief on June 16,1994, which was denied as untimely.
On appeal, movant contends the mandatory time limits of Rule 24.035 violate due process, equal protection and federal habeas corpus rights. We deny movant's point. The time constraints of Rule 24.035 are constitutionally valid and are mandatory by their terms. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). The constraints do not violate the rights of due process or equal protection. Dwyer v. State, 781 S.W.2d 574 (Mo.App.1989). They do not constitute a suspension of the right to relief under habeas corpus. White v. State, 779 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Mo. banc 1989).
Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).