Case ID: sw3d_393/html/0140-02.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

Mark PERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 98545.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    March 5, 2013.
    Andy Zleit, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Shaun Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. P.J. and ROY L. RICHTER, J. and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark Perry (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion challenging his denial of probation under Section 559.115.3. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.085(k); Roberts v. State, 276 S.W.3d 833, 835 (Mo. banc 2009). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b) Mo. R. Civ. P. (2012). 
      
      . All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P. (2012).
     
      
      . All statutory references are to RSMo.2000, unless otherwise indicated.