Case ID: sw3d_43/html/0454-02.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 POWELL, Appellant/Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 77779.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    April 17, 2001.
    
      Mary S. Choi, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Evan J. Buchheim, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR. and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Mark Powell (“Movant”), appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).