Case ID: sw2d_863/html/0383-02.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

Edward RIEFLE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
    No. 63371.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Sept. 14, 1993.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 19, 1993.
    Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 23, 1993.
    Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for mov-ant/appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent/respondent.
    
      Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.-035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been fur'nished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).