Case ID: sw2d_782/html/0147-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alfred HEMPHILL, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
    No. 56388.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Dec. 29, 1989.
    Judith C. LaRose, Columbia, for movant-appellant.
    William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
   ORDER

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).