Case Name: Sandy WILLIAMS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2007-09-25
Citations: 233 S.W.3d 796
Docket Number: No. ED 89213
Parties: Sandy WILLIAMS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY K HOFF, P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 233
Pages: 796–796

Head Matter:
Sandy WILLIAMS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 89213.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Sept. 25, 2007.
Jessica M. Hathaway, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before MARY K HOFF, P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Sandy Williams appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28, 33 (Mo.banc 2006). 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.2006, unless otherwise indicated.