Case ID: sw3d_448/html/0875-01.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

Harold FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 100786
    Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FOUR
    Filed: November 25, 2014
    Robert W. Lundt, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before Patricia L. Cohen, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Robert M. Clayton III, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Harold Ford (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying his claims that trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) “laboring under an actual conflict of interest”; (2) failing to impeach a witness; and (8) failing to call a witness.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s decision to deny Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We. affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).