Case ID: sw3d_64/html/0869-01.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

James BAILEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
    No. ED 79173.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Jan. 15, 2002.
    Raymund J. Capelovitch, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Andrew W. Hassell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, James Bailey, appeals the denial on the merits of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and 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).