Case ID: sw3d_185/html/0710-02.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

Derek Q. JAMES, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 86173.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Jan. 24, 2006.
    Rehearing Denied March 9, 2006.
    Lisa M. Stroup, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cecily L. Helms, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    
      Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and PATRICIAL. COHEN, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Derek Q. James, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain questions by the prosecutor during the direct examination of a witness.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).