Case ID: sw3d_30/html/0190-02.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

Wilbur GLASS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 76642.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    July 25, 2000.
    Annette Llewellyn, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Gregory L. Barnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER, III, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Wilbur Glass, (“appellant”), appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after a hearing. Appellant previously appealed his Rule 24.035 motion after it was denied without a hearing. We reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing in Glass v. State, 957 S.W.2d 483 (Mo.App.E.D.1997). The motion court again denied his motion after the mandated hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(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).