Case ID: sw3d_402/html/0612-01.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

Tommie J. POLLARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 98918.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    June 28, 2013.
    Roxanna A. Mason, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and KURT S. ODENWALD, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tommie Pollard (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant asserts that his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to explain the consequences of entering an Alford plea. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). 
      
      . North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).