Case ID: sw3d_155/html/0775-01.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

Paul MAZZIE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 84095.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Jan. 11, 2005.
    Jo Ann Rotermund, Gwenda Robinson, co-counsel, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
    Deborah Daniels, Leslie McNamara, co-counsel, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
    Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul Mazzie (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that his plea was involuntary because he was under the mistaken impression he would be released át age seventy.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b). 
      
      . All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2004, unless otherwise indicated.