Case ID: sw2d_878/html/0931-02.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

Troy T. HOLIFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. 65030.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    July 19, 1994.
    Raymond L. Legg, Columbia, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. Nixon and Jennifer A. Glan-cy, Jefferson City, for respondent.
    
      Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.-035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).