Case Name: Ernest SPEER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-03-27
Citations: 362 S.W.3d 508
Docket Number: No. ED 96120
Parties: Ernest SPEER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 362
Pages: 508–508

Head Matter:
Ernest SPEER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 96120.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
March 27, 2012.
Timothy J. Forneris, St. Louis, MO, for Movant/Appellant.
Shaun J. Mackelprang, Dora A. Fichter, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent/Respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Ernest Speer appeals from the motion court's judgment denying, following an evi-dentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15 (Rule 29.15 motion or post-conviction motion). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2010, unless otherwise indicated.