SOUBASIS v. STATE, 331 S.W.3d 731 (Mo.App.E.D. 2011)

Dionysus SOUBASIS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. ED94367.Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
February 22, 2011.

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

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Ted C. House, Judge.

Maleaner R. Harvey, St. Louis, MO, For MovanfAppellant.

Shaun J. Mackelprang, Richard A. Starnes, Jefferson City, MO, For Respondent/Respondent.

Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

ORDER
PER CURIAM.

Dionysus Soubasis appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his amended Rule 29.15[1] postconviction relief motion after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Glass v. State, 227 S.W.3d 463, 468 (Mo.banc 2007). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).