Case ID: sw3d_117/html/0677-01.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

Pietro BIEZER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.
    No. ED 81214.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    Sept. 23, 2003.
    Kent Denzel, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., & Patrick Morgan, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Pietro Biezer appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have, however, been provided with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).