Court Opinion

ID: 5090759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-01 15:26:50.408516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:21.350463
License: Public Domain

[1] ORDER
[2] Appeals from order denying Rule 24.035 motion on his convictions for one count of sodomy, § 566.060, RSMo. Supp. 1993; and one count of sexual abuse in the first degree, § 566.100, RSMo. Supp. 1993.
[3] Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[4] MEMORANDUM SUPPLEMENTING ORDER AFFIRMING JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)
[5] This memorandum is for the information of the parties and sets forththe reasons for the order affirming the judgment.
 THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FORMAL OPINION OF THIS COURT. IT IS NOT UNIFORMLY AVAILABLE. IT SHALL NOT BE REPORTED, CITED OR OTHERWISE USED IN UNRELATED CASES BEFORE THIS COURT OR ANY OTHER COURT. IN THE EVENT OF THE FILING OF A MOTION TO REHEAR OR TRANSFER TO THE SUPREME COURT, A COPY OF THIS MEMORANDUM SHALL BE ATTACHED TO ANY SUCH MOTION.
[6] John L. Matheis appeals from an order denying his Rule 24.035 motion to vacate judgment and sentence on his convictions for one count of sodomy, § 566.060, RSMo. Supp. 1993; and one count of sexual abuse in the first degree, § 566.100, RSMo. Supp. 1993. Appellant was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for sodomy and five years imprisonment for sexual abuse to be served consecutively. Appellant contends the motion court clearly erred in dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely because the deadline for such motions is unconstitutional. We affirm.
[7] Appellant was charged by information with two counts of sodomy in violation of § 566.060, RSMo. Supp. 1993 and one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of § 566.100 RSMo. Supp. 1993. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to first degree sexual abuse and one count of sodomy pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. After an explanation to appellant of his right to trial, the court found his plea to be voluntary and accepted it.
[8] On December 7, 1994, appellant was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment on the sodomy conviction and five years imprisonment on the first degree sexual assault conviction with the terms to run consecutively in accordance with the plea agreement. At this time, appellant was informed of his rights pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 24.035.
[9] On October 24, 1995, appellant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court dismissed appellant's Rule 24.035 motion as untimely filed. This appeal ensued.
[10] Appellant asserts the motion court clearly erred in dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely because the deadline for such motions is unconstitutional. Appellant concedes that the Missouri Supreme Court has previously rejected constitutional challenges to Rule 29.15 and 24.035. The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the time limitations contained in Rules 24.035 and 29.15 and determined they are valid and mandatory. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. banc 1989), cert.denied sub nom., Walker v. State, 493 U.S. 866 (1989). Judgment affirmed.
 *Page 264