Case Name: Daniel R. HOFFARTH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-03-12
Citations: 393 S.W.3d 67
Docket Number: No. ED 97939
Parties: Daniel R. HOFFARTH, 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: 393
Pages: 67–67

Head Matter:
Daniel R. HOFFARTH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 97939.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
March 12, 2012.
Jessica Hathaway, Missouri Public Defender Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
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.
Daniel R. Hoffarth appeals from the motion court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment denying his Rule 29.15 Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, following an evidentiary hearing. 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 our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).