Case ID: sw3d_290/html/0194-02.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

Darryl JOHNSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 91366.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    Aug. 18, 2009.
    Gwenda Renee Robinson, Office of the Missouri Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
    Chris Koster, Attorney General, John W. Grantham, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
    Before KURT S. ODENWALD, P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER, III, J., and ROY L. RICHTER, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Darryl Johnson, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.085 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that the court erred in denying his motion because his counsel erroneously advised him about the sentence he would receive.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).