Case Name: Ike CRAWFORD, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-05-27
Citations: 949 S.W.2d 198
Docket Number: No. 70751
Parties: Ike CRAWFORD, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
Judges: Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 949
Pages: 198–199

Head Matter:
Ike CRAWFORD, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
No. 70751.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
May 27, 1997.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 14,1997.
Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 19,1997.
Deborah B. Wafer, Dist. Defender, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jacqueline K. Hamra, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.
Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Ike Crawford (Movant) appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. He alleges the motion court erred when it found that l)trial counsel was not ineffective and 2)that motion counsel did not abandon him. We affirm. An extended opinion would, have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum detailing our reasons for affirming the judgment of the trial court. Rule 84.16(b).