Case Name: James MARKS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-08-23
Citations: 504 S.W.3d 100
Docket Number: No. ED 103290
Parties: James MARKS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, C.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J. and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 504
Pages: 100–100

Head Matter:
James MARKS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 103290
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FIVE
Filed: August 23, 2016
Maleaner R. Harvey, Missouri Public Defender’s Office, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellant.
Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, Missouri, for Respondent.
Before Philip M. Hess, C.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J. and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
James Marks (Movant) appeals the judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to properly argue that Movant was entitled to a jury instruction of third-degree assault. Movant also asserts that trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective because they failed to argue that Mov-ant's armed criminal action charge could not be submitted with the underlying felony of second-degree assault. Finding no error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and .the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).