Case ID: sw3d_416/html/0830-01.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

Rickey E. MORGAN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 100057.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    Dec. 24, 2013.
    Susan Kister, Chesterfield, MO, for Appellant.
    Karen Kramer, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
    Before LISA S. VAN AMBURG, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rickey E. Morgan (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).