Case ID: sw3d_110/html/0871-01.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

Anthony D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 81544.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District. Division Three.
    July 22, 2003.
    Mary S. Choi, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Anne E. Edgington, Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, Jr., J„ LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Johnson appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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