DOUGLAS ALBERTY, MOVANT-APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT.
No. 72571Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, WRIT DIVISION FOUR
OPINION FILED: January 13, 1998
[1] [EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION OR TRANSFER TO THE SUPREME COURT.]
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, HON. MARGARET M. NEILL, JUDGE.
Dave Hemingway, S. Paige Canfield, 1320 Market Street, Room 235, St. Louis, MO 63103, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Genl., John M. Morris, III, Asst. Atty. Genl., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Genl., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., and Paul J. Simon and Mary K. Hoff, JJ.
[2] ORDER
PER CURIAM.
[3] Movant appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. 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). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
