Case ID: sw2d_950/html/0325-02.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

Nathaniel JEFFERSON, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
    No. 71986.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    Aug. 26, 1997.
    Elaine A. Marten, St. Louis, for Movant-Appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent-Respondent.
    Before DOWD, P.J., and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel Jefferson (Movant) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).