Case Name: Arthur JONES, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-10-06
Citations: 471 S.W.3d 803
Docket Number: No. ED 102497
Parties: Arthur JONES, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 471
Pages: 803–803

Head Matter:
Arthur JONES, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 102497
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
Filed: October 6, 2015
Amy Faerber, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, Saint Louis, Missouri 63101, for Appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Evan J. Buchheim, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 889, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, for Respondent.
Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Arthur Jones appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Jones raises two points on appeal: 1) that trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to object to the hammer instruction (MAI-CR 3d 312.10) given to the jury; and 2) that trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to obtain and introduce into evidence a bloodstained shirt. We affirm.
The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. .An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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)..