Case ID: sw3d_367/html/0675-01.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

Mark A. MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 97143.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    June 12, 2012.
    Robert W. Lundt, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
    Chris Koster, Attorney General, Mary H. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
    Before KURT S. ODENWALD, C. J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and ROBERT M. CLAYTON III, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark Moore appeals the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Moore’s request for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).