Case Name: Arnold TAYLOR, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2014-12-09
Citations: 456 S.W.3d 861
Docket Number: ED 100566
Parties: Arnold TAYLOR, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 456
Pages: 861–861

Head Matter:
Arnold TAYLOR, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
ED 100566
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: December 9, 2014
Maleaner R. Harvey, 1010 Market ‘‘Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for Movant/Appellant.
Mary Highland Moore, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for Respondent/Respondent.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Arnold Taylor appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v.. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App.E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2013, unless otherwise indicated.