Case ID: sw3d_482/html/0470-01.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

James L. SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 102228
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
    
    Filed: February 23, 2016
    Andrew E. Zleit, Missouri Public Defender Office, 1010 Market St., Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for Appellant.
    Chris Koster, Attorney General, Robert Jefferson Bartholomew, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box-899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for Respondent.
    Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Scott appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).