Case ID: sw3d_203/html/0240-01.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

Arlen Bert BROWN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
    No. ED 87143.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    Oct. 10, 2006.
    Jessica Hathaway, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Shaun J. Mackelprang, Victor J. Melen-brink — co-counsel, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Arlen Brown (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial, following an eviden-tiary hearing, of his 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief (Motion). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that 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 to the parties, for their use only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b). 
      
      . All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2006, unless otherwise indicated.