Case ID: sw3d_318/html/0793-01.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

William D. DAVIS, Appellant/Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 94040.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
    Aug. 31, 2010.
    
      Brocea Smith, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Chris Koster, Jamie P. Rasmussen, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before: GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William D. Davis appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his motion to reopen his postconviction case. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2010).