Case ID: sw3d_194/html/0925-01.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

Willie NUTALL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 85839.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    July 5, 2006.
    Jo Ann Rotermund, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Deborah Daniels, Roger Johnson, Co-Counsel, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J. and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J. and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Willie Nutall, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that during his plea hearing the court failed to comply with Rule 24.02.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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).