Case ID: sw3d_475/html/0703-01.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

Larry BETZEL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 101094
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
    
    Filed: April 21, 2015
    Gwenda R. Robinson, Missouri Public Defender Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, for Appellant.
    Mary H. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, for Respondent.
    Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J,
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

Larry Betzel (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-.conyiction motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and locate a videotape to use as impeachment evidence. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. 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).