Case ID: sw3d_465/html/0512-01.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

Darius SUMPTER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 101771
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
    FILED: July 14, 2015
    Andrew E. Zleit, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, for appellant.
    Shaun J. Mackelprang, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, for respondent.
    Before Lawrence E. Mooney, P.J., Lisa S. Van Amburg, C.J., and Clifford H. Ahrens, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

Darius Sumpter (Movant) appeals the motion court’s judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. We affirm.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that were 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).