Case ID: sw3d_408/html/0802-02.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

John Daniel HAWKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 99086.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Sept. 17, 2013.
    
      Lisa M. Stroup, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Chris Koster, Attorney General, Mary H. Moore, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a claim based on Movant’s right to a speedy trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).