Case ID: sw3d_482/html/0473-01.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

Thomas WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 102894
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
    Filed: February 23, 2016
    Amanda P. Faerber, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, Attorney for Appellant.
    Chris Koster, Attorney General, Mary H. Moore, Asst. Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899, Attorney for Respondent,
    Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J. and Mary K. Hoff and Roy L. Richter, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Washington (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because Movant’s trial counsel failed to present evidence of Movant’s mental health status and cognitive limitations in support of his motion to suppress statements he made to the police.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential 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). ■