ADAMS v. STATE, 233 S.W.3d 233 (Mo.App.E.D. 2007)

Alphonso ADAMS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 88868.Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
September 18, 2007.

[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, Angela T. Quigless, Judge.

Jessica Hathaway, Office of the Missouri Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Highland Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

ORDER
PER CURIAM.

Movant, Alphonso Adams, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On

Page 234

appeal, movant argues that his counsel coerced him into entering his guilty pleas.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).