Case ID: sw3d_572/html/0594-01.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 SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 106839
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
    Filed: April 23, 2019
    Steven Kratky, 1010 Market St. Ste. 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Movant/Appellant.
    Richard A. Starnes, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Defendant/Respondent.
    Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.
    ORDER
   PER CURIAM.

James Smith ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment denying the post-conviction relief claims asserted in his amended Rule 29.15 motion. Movant asserts two points on appeal. Finding that Movant has failed to demonstrate that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion, we affirm the judgment of the motion court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have 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).