Case ID: sw3d_148/html/0848-01.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

Mark DICKERSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
    No. ED 83591.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Oct. 26, 2004.
    S. Kristina Starke, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Andrea K. Spillars, Evan J. Buchheim, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Mark Dickerson, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing on one of his claims. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).