Case ID: sw2d_949/html/0198-01.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

Ike CRAWFORD, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
    No. 70751.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    May 27, 1997.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 14,1997.
    Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 19,1997.
    
      Deborah B. Wafer, Dist. Defender, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jacqueline K. Hamra, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.
    Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ike Crawford (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. He alleges the motion court erred when it found that l)trial counsel was not ineffective and 2)that motion counsel did not abandon him. We affirm. An extended opinion would, have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum detailing our reasons for affirming the judgment of the trial court. Rule 84.16(b).