Case Name: Christopher SADLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-10-12
Citations: 4 S.W.3d 602
Docket Number: No. ED 75065
Parties: Christopher SADLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, Jr., P.J., KENT E. KAROHL, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 4
Pages: 602–602

Head Matter:
Christopher SADLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 75065.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Oct. 12, 1999.
Jennifer S. Walsh, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, Jr., P.J., KENT E. KAROHL, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Christopher Sadler, appeals from denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. In a previous appeal we remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether his guilty pleas were voluntary and whether movant had the benefit of effective assistance of counsel. Sadler v. State, 965 S.W.2d 389 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). We held the plea court failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 24.02.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties. The findings of the trial court and the amended order and judgment are supported by the evidence, particularly by movant's testimony. Thus, they are not clearly erroneous.
An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).