Case ID: sw3d_398/html/0092-01.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

Steven BOESING, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 98384.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    April 30, 2013.
    Andrew Zleit, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Robert Bartholomew, Jr., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J. and LISA S. VAN AMBURG, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Boesing (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). No error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(5). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).