Case Name: Patrick COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-02-26
Citations: 392 S.W.3d 536
Docket Number: No. ED 98341
Parties: Patrick COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and ROY L. RICHTER and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 392
Pages: 536–537

Head Matter:
Patrick COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 98341.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Feb. 26, 2013.
Andrew E. Zleit, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Timothy A. Blackwell, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and ROY L. RICHTER and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Patrick Cooper ("Movant") appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) investigate and call the brother and sister of the victim; and (2) call C.R.H. and the Divi sion of Family Services caseworker who had investigated allegations made by the victim against C.R.H.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).