Case Name: Joseph D. STEWART, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-05-31
Citations: 164 S.W.3d 143
Docket Number: No. ED 85062
Parties: Joseph D. STEWART, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 164
Pages: 143–143

Head Matter:
Joseph D. STEWART, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 85062.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
May 31, 2005.
Gwenda Renee’ Robinson, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Deborah Daniels, Michael William Bradley (co-counsel), Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Joseph D. Stewart (Movant) appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that because Movant's motion did not allege facts, not refuted by the record, showing that trial counsel's performance did not conform to the degree of skill, care and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney, Movant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, and the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479, 497 (Mo. banc 1997); Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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. 2005, unless otherwise indicated.