Case ID: sw2d_936/html/0175-01.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

Darryl DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. 69906.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Dec. 10, 1996.
    Deborah B. Wafer, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darryl Davis appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find both claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).