Case Name: Maceo HAMPTON, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-06-08
Citations: 996 S.W.2d 750
Docket Number: No. 73438
Parties: Maceo HAMPTON, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before HOFF, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, J. and RHODES RUSSELL, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 996
Pages: 750–750

Head Matter:
Maceo HAMPTON, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 73438.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
June 8, 1999.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 14, 1999.
Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 24, 1999.
Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Daniel W., Follett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before HOFF, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, J. and RHODES RUSSELL, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Maceo Hampton, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, following his jury conviction for first degree property damage in violation of section 569.100, RSMo 1994.
In his sole point on appeal, Movant alleges the motion court erred in failing to render conclusions of law on his challenge to trial counsel's failure to subpoena three witnesses to trial. We find no error. The motion court granted Movant a hearing on his 29.15 motion, but he presented no evidence in support of his claims. Rule 29.15(j) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented. However, "a well-recognized exception to the rule is that when there has been an evidentiary hearing at which no substantial evidence is presented in support of a factual claim, there is no error in failing to make a finding of fact or conclusions of law regarding a bare allegation in a post-conviction motion." State v. Hunter, 840 S.W.2d 850, 864 (Mo. banc 1992). Further, his allegations that imply his post-conviction counsel was ineffective are not cognizable under Rule 29.15. State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 928 (Mo. banc 1992). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).