
    Tommy NOBLES, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
    No. 61476.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Sept. 22, 1992.
    Elizabeth Haines, St. Louis, for mov-ant/appellant.
    William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent/respondent.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals following dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely filed. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).  