JOHNSON v. STATE, 36 S.W.3d 419 (Mo.App.E.D. 2001)

STANLEY JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.

No. ED 77910Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
January 23, 2001

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION OR TRANSFER TO THE SUPREME COURT.]

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, HONORABLE MARK D. SEIGEL.

Gwenda R. Robinson; Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon; Attorney General, Stephanie Morrell; Assistant Attorney General Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before: Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Mary Rhodes Russell, J., and Richard B. Teitelman, J.

ORDER
PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Page 420

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).