Case ID: sw3d_83/html/0069-01.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

John T. SLAVEN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 80051.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    Aug. 20, 2002.
    Scott Thompson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Dora A. Fichter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and JAMES R. DOWD, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, John T. Slaven, appeals from the judgment denying, without an eviden-tiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We previously affirmed Movant’s conviction on three counts of statutory sodomy in violation of section 566.060, RSMo Cum.Supp.1993. State v. Slaven, 34 S.W.3d 192 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). He now contends his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the trial court’s prohibition against the use of a visual aid.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).