Case Name: Marsha RULO, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-10-24
Citations: 531 S.W.3d 104
Docket Number: No. ED 105185
Parties: Marsha RULO, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 531
Pages: 104–105

Head Matter:
Marsha RULO, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 105185
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
Filed: October 24, 2017
Matthew W. Huckeby, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Movant/Appellant.
Christine K. Lesicko, P.O. Box 899, Jef-. ferson City, MO 65102, For Respondent/Respondent.
Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Marsha Rulo appeals from the motion court's judgment denying, without an evi-dentiary hearing, her amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.15. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. 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).