LANIER v. STATE, 26 S.W.3d 333 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000)

SIDNEY LANIER, Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.

No. ED76745Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Filed: June 30, 2000 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied: August 15, 2000. Application for Transfer Denied: October 3, 2000.

[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, HONORABLE JOHN J. RILEY.

Raymund J. Capelovitch, 1221 Locust, Suite 350, St. Louis, Missouri 63103, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Stacy L. Anerson, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Richard B. Teitelman, P.J., Clifford H. Ahrens, J., and Lawrence E. Mooney, J., concurring.

ORDER
PER CURIAM

Movant Sidney Lanier was convicted of two counts of first-degree assault, Section 565.050, RSMo 1994, and two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 1994. This Court affirmed his convictions in State v. Lanier, 985 S.W.2d 377
(Mo.App.E.D. 1999). Movant now appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He argues that the

Page 334

motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present the testimony of an alibi witness.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would serve no precedential or jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion to the parties, for their exclusive use, detailing the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).