Case ID: sw3d_376/html/0706-01.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

Melvin FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 97301.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
    Sept. 4, 2012.
    Timothy J. Forneris, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Chris Foster, Attorney General, John Winston Grantham, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., C.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and ROBERT M. CLAYTON III, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Ford, also known as James Spann (“Ford”), appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Ford’s request for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).