Case ID: sw3d_143/html/0706-02.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

Christopher GILLESPIE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 83654.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Sept. 14, 2004.
    
      Maleaner Ryna Harvey, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
    Andrea Kaye Spillars, Dora A. Fichter, co-counsel, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
    Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., BOOKER T. SHAW, J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Gillespie (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate the case and prepare for trial.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b). 
      
      . All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2004, unless otherwise indicated.