Case ID: sw3d_48/html/0120-01.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

Jerriishant JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 78396.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    June 26, 2001.
    Mary S. Choi, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J., and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jerriishant Johnson (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. This court previously affirmed Movant’s conviction of one count of assault in the first degree in violation of section 565.050, RSMo 2000 and one count of armed criminal action in violation of section 571.015, RSMo 2000 on direct appeal. State v. Johnson, 997 S.W.2d 537 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). In this appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence supporting his claim of self-defense.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).