Case Name: Houston WILKS, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-11-16
Citations: 9 S.W.3d 684
Docket Number: No. ED 76118
Parties: Houston WILKS, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANDALL, P.J. and PUDLOWSKI, S.J. and HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 9
Pages: 684–685

Head Matter:
Houston WILKS, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 76118.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Nov. 16, 1999.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 20, 2000.
Jason Marks, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kristin Frazier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CRANDALL, P.J. and PUDLOWSKI, S.J. and HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Houston Wilks (Movant) appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court erred in denying his motion -without an evidentiary hearing because trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to: (1) object to the prosecutor's closing argument; (2) object to questions by the prosecutor which prejudiced Movant; (3) submit MAI-CR3d 310.08; (4) cross-examine Detective Craig Jeffrey adequately; and (5),object to the admission of photographs of the exterior area of the apartment building. Movant additionally contends the trial court erred in sustaining the peremptory strike of juror number 13 because the reasons for the strike were mere pretext for discrimination; and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise on appeal the trial court's error in overruling the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the close of all evidence.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no jurisprudential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).