WILKES v. STATE, 64 S.W.3d 880 (Mo.App.E.D. 2002)

LARRY WILKES, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. ED 79566, ED 79671Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
January 15, 2002

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

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County; Bernhardt C. Drumm, Jr., Judge.

Page 881

Larry Wilkes, Jefferson City, MO, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Nicole E. Gorovsky, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before William H. Crandall, Jr., P.J., Kathianne Knaup Crane, J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J.

ORDER
PER CURIAM.

Movant, Larry Wilkes, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find that the motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).