Case Name: James MILLER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-05-29
Citations: 45 S.W.3d 917
Docket Number: No. ED 77678
Parties: James MILLER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before MAY K. HOFF, C.J. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 45
Pages: 917–917

Head Matter:
James MILLER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 77678.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
May 29, 2001.
Mary S. Choi, Assistant Public Defender; St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, John Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before MAY K. HOFF, C.J. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, James Miller, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He contends his counsel provided ineffective assistance when she misrepresented his chances of being acquitted and thereby coerced him into pleading guilty. 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).