Case ID: sw3d_544/html/0702-02.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

Joe REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 105374
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
    Filed: April 17, 2018
    Amy E. Lowe, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO. 63101, for appellant.
    Karen L. Kramer, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.
    Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.
    ORDER
   PER CURIAM.

Joe Reed ("Movant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the closure of the courtroom during a portion of Movant's trial, and failing to object to witness testimony on grounds of hearsay, confrontation, and uncharged bad acts. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).