Case Name: John A. HAMBY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-01-22
Citations: 66 S.W.3d 180
Docket Number: No. ED 79854
Parties: John A. HAMBY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 66
Pages: 180–181

Head Matter:
John A. HAMBY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 79854.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Jan. 22, 2002.
Gwenda R. Robinson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Dora A. Fichter, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, John Hamby, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find that the motion court's judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, prepared the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision for use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).