Case ID: sw3d_518/html/0288-01.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

Eduardo TOLBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 103584
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
    Filed: May 16, 2017
    Maleaner R. Harvey, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO. 63101, for appellant.
    Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.
    Before Angela T. Quigless, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eduardo Tolbert (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises one point on appeal, arguing the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.025 without an evidentiary hearing because defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call Movant and the victims as witnesses at the suppression hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). 
      
      . All rule references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2016).