Case ID: sw2d_862/html/0390-01.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

Anthony SPICUZZA, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
    No. 63035.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Sept. 14, 1993.
    Elizabeth Haines, St. Louis, for movant/ap-pellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent/respondent.
    Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential 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).