Case Name: Charles D. RULO, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-10-02
Citations: 57 S.W.3d 346
Docket Number: No. ED 78869
Parties: Charles D. RULO, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 57
Pages: 346–346

Head Matter:
Charles D. RULO, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 78869.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Oct. 2, 2001.
Douglas R. Hoff, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Charles D. Rulo (Movant) appeals the judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).