Case Name: Gerald GARRETT, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-05-11
Citations: 991 S.W.2d 187
Docket Number: No. 73819
Parties: Gerald GARRETT, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before HOFF, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, J. and RHODES RUSSELL, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 991
Pages: 187–187

Head Matter:
Gerald GARRETT, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 73819.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
May 11, 1999.
Lisa M. Stroup, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl Caponegro Nield, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before HOFF, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, J. and RHODES RUSSELL, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Gerald Garrett (Movant) appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court erred in denying his motion following an evidentiary hearing because he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to voir dire the jury panel as to whether they were aware of a newspaper article mentioning Movant's name published the day before the trial began.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential or jurisprudential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).