Case ID: sw3d_369/html/0083-02.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

Michael WALTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 96773.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    June 19, 2012.
    
      Gwenda R. Robinson, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
    Chris Koster, Attorney General, Evan J. Buchheim, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. P.J. and MARY K. HOFF and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Walton (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant argues the motion court clearly erred in: (1) denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief because his plea counsel was ineffective for misadvising him before his plea that he would have to serve only fifteen percent of any sentence imposed before becoming eligible for parole, and (2) granting the State’s motion to compel the disclosure of Movant’s entire trial file in violation of Movant’s attorney-client privilege.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).