Case Name: Ernesto DELATEJERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-03-20
Citations: 388 S.W.3d 179
Docket Number: No. ED 97021
Parties: Ernesto DELATEJERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., and MARY F. HOFF and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 388
Pages: 179–179

Head Matter:
Ernesto DELATEJERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 97021.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
March 20, 2012.
Edward S. Thompson, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Chris Foster, Attorney General, Jennifer A. Wideman, Asst. Attorney. General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., and MARY F. HOFF and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Ernesto Delatejera ("Movant") appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. In his sole point, Movant argues that the plea court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because his motion alleged facts not conclusively refuted by the record that his plea counsel inaccurately promised a sentence less than twenty-five years if he entered a blind plea.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).