Legal Opinion

Shigemura v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided November 13, 1990No. 58029Published

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

2Per curiam

Movant appeals denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Facts regarding mov-ant’s trial and sentencing are found in State v. Shigemura, 768 S.W.2d 620 (Mo.App.1989). (Conviction affirmed on March 28, 1989). On November 22, 1989, movant filed a pro se motion. The motion was untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after movant filed the transcript in his direct appeal. Rule 29.15(b). Movant’s motion is time barred by the provisions of the rule. See Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110…

3Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Day v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1989
  2. State v. ShigemuraMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API