Case ID: sw3d_69/html/0923-01.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

Robert Lee JONES, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 79875.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    March 12, 2002.
    Mark A. Grothoff, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Anne E. Edgington, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Robert Jones, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for unlawful use of a weapon in violation of section 571.030.1(1), RSMo 2000. State v. Jones, 31 S.W.3d 515 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). He now claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to withdraw because he was a necessary impeachment witness.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).