Case ID: sw3d_518/html/0900-02.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

Jordan SHELTON III, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.
    No. ED 104472
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
    Filed: May 23, 2017
    Jedd C. Schneider, 1000 W. Nifong, Building 7, Ste. 100, Columbia, MO 65203, For Plaintiff'Appellant.
    Mary H. Moore, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Defendant/Respondent.
    Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Colleen Dolan, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jordan Shelton III (“Movant”) appeals the motion court’s order and judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170, 175 (Mo. banc 2009). No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).