Case ID: sw3d_55/html/0888-01.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

Maurice PATTERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 79128.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    Sept. 25, 2001.
    Mark A. Grothoff, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stacy L. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., GARY M. GAERTNER and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Maurice Patterson, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). 
      
      . All Rule references are to the Missouri Court Rules (2001).