Case Name: Michael E. MOORE, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-07-15
Citations: 948 S.W.2d 276
Docket Number: No. 70722
Parties: Michael E. MOORE, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
Judges: Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 948
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
Michael E. MOORE, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
No. 70722.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
July 15, 1997.
John M. Sehilmoeller, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. General, John M. Morris, III, Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Attys. General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Michael E. Moore ("Movant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. This is the second time this case has been before this court. Previously, we remanded this action to the motion court for a determination on Movant's claim of abandonment by postconviction counsel. See State v. Moore, 910 S.W.2d 779 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). The motion court determined that counsel's failure to file an amended 24.035 motion was attributable to Movant's action or inaction.
We now review this decision as well as the motion court's denial of Movant's pro se motion which we declined to review pending resolution of the abandonment issue. Mov-ant has transferred the record and his brief from the first appeal. The State has not supplied us with its first brief or addressed any of the issues from the first appeal. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).