Case ID: sw3d_33/html/0596-02.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

Alonzo MARTIN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 76300.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Oct. 31, 2000.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 7, 2000.
    Application for Transfer Denied Jan. 23, 2001.
    David C. Hemingway, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Linda Lemke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, P.J., and MARY RHODES RUSSELL and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alonzo Martin (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum of law, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).