Case Name: Martez HUNTER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-02-03
Citations: 453 S.W.3d 865
Docket Number: No. ED 100851
Parties: Martez HUNTER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 453
Pages: 865–866

Head Matter:
Martez HUNTER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 100851
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: February 3, 2015
Jeannette L. Igbenebor, 920 Main Street, Suite 500, Kansas City, Missouri 64105, Danelle C. Duffy, Duffy Law Firm, LLC, 231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 800, Clayton, Missouri 63105, for Appellant.
Karen L. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, for Respondent.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Martez Hunter (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his post- conviction motion based on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness to testify at trial. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).