Case ID: sw3d_50/html/0290-01.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

Eugene SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 78489.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    June 12, 2001.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 26, 2001.
    Mark A. Grothoff, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Susan K. Glass, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J., and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eugene Smith (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. This court previously affirmed Movant’s conviction for possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 195.202, RSMo 2000, on direct appeal. State v. Smith, 11 S.W.3d 733 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). In this appeal, Mov-ant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness who would have testified that the controlled substance belonged to him and not Mov-ant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).