Case ID: sw3d_520/html/0828-01.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

Jamikeo THOMPSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
    ED 104454
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
    Filed: June 20, 2017
    Andrew E. Zleit, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Movant/Appellant.
    Dora A. Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Respondent/Respondent.
    Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Colleen Dolan, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jamikeo Thompson appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b). 
      
      . All rule references are to Mo. R. Crim. P. 2015, unless otherwise indicated.