Case ID: sw3d_24/html/0731-01.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

Charles DURLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 76221.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Feb. 1, 2000.
    S. Paige Canfield, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Karen L. Kramer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before: GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J, PAUL J. SIMON, J., and JAMES R. DOWD, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Charles Durley appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).