Case Name: Ernest C. WILLIAMS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-05-14
Citations: 400 S.W.3d 838
Docket Number: No. ED 98824
Parties: Ernest C. WILLIAMS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and LISA S. VAN AMBURG, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 400
Pages: 838–838

Head Matter:
Ernest C. WILLIAMS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 98824.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
May 14, 2013.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 18, 2013.
Ernest Cornelious Williams, Mineral Point, MO, pro se.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and LISA S. VAN AMBURG, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Ernest C. Williams (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his motion to re-open his Rule 27.26 post-conviction proceedings. We affirm.
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. No error of law appears. The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for o.ur decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).