Case ID: sw3d_553/html/0892-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roderick FAREWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 105333
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
    Filed: August 14, 2018
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Mary S. Choi, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.
    ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Mary H. Moore, Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.
    Before Philip M. Hess, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Mary K. Hoff, JJ.
    ORDER
   PER CURIAM.

Roderick Farewell appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).