Case Name: Terone McCAMBRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-06-15
Citations: 136 S.W.3d 822
Docket Number: No. ED 83100
Parties: Terone McCAMBRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and MARY R. RUSSELL, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 136
Pages: 822–823

Head Matter:
Terone McCAMBRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 83100.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
June 15, 2004.
Gwenda R. Robinson, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Andrea Kaye Spillars, Dora A. Fichter, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and MARY R. RUSSELL, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Terone McCambry ("Movant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant sought post-conviction relief following his convictions for attempt to commit forcible rape, first-degree burglary, and two counts of third-degree assault. We previously affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. State v. McCambry, 62 S.W.3d 441 (Mo.App.2001).
Movant argues in his point on appeal that the motion court erred in denying him post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's statements in closing argument that referred to Jeffrey Dahmer and students who commit school shootings. He argues that his trial counsel's failure to object was unreasonable because the prosecutor's argument referred to horrific events outside of the evidence, and he asserts that the comparisons made were disproportionate analogies that the evidence did not warrant.
We find that the motion court's judgment denying Movant post-conviction relief was based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous, and we affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the motion court's judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).