Case ID: sw3d_488/html/0209-01.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

James HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    ED 102605
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    Filed: May 3, 2016
    Gwenda Reneé Robinson, District Defender, Office B/Area 68, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.
    Karen L. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, . Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent. ,.
    Before Sherri B. Sulíiyan, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

• James Harris (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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).