Case ID: sw2d_913/html/0344-01.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

Eric BEISHLINE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
    No. 67804.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Northern Division.
    Nov. 21, 1995.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 17, 1996.
    Kathleen G. Henry, Green, Hennings & Henry, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General and Cheryl A. Caponegro, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before REINHARD, P.J., and AHRENS and RHODES, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous; and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).