Case ID: sw3d_518/html/0283-02.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

Felicia SMITH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
    ED 104488
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
    Filed: May 16, 2017
    
      Timothy J. Forneris, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Movant/Appellant.
    Nathan J. Aquino, 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.

Felicia Smith appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying her 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 findings and conclusions of the motion court 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 then.- 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.