Case Name: Charles GRAHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-10-28
Citations: 118 S.W.3d 277
Docket Number: No. WD 62027
Parties: Charles GRAHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before PAUL M. SPINDEN, Presiding Judge, THOMAS H. NEWTON, Judge, and RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 118
Pages: 277–277

Head Matter:
Charles GRAHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. WD 62027.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Oct. 28, 2003.
Vanessa Caleb, Appellate Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John Munson Morris, Breck Burgess, Office of Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before PAUL M. SPINDEN, Presiding Judge, THOMAS H. NEWTON, Judge, and RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
Charles Graham appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. He sought relief upon the grounds that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to adequately investigate and prepare for the testimony of Steve McKee, one of the State's witnesses. Graham argues that his counsel should have sought the exclusion of McKee's testimony regarding two instances in which Graham was involved in manufacturing methamphetamine on the grounds that it was inadmissible evidence of other crimes.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and find no error of law. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no prec-edential or jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).