Case Name: Christopher MEADOR, Defendant/Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-03-15
Citations: 157 S.W.3d 759
Docket Number: No. ED 84558
Parties: Christopher MEADOR, Defendant/Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.
Judges: Before LAWRENCE E. MONEY, P.J. and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 157
Pages: 759–760

Head Matter:
Christopher MEADOR, Defendant/Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.
No. ED 84558.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
March 15, 2005.
Maleaner Ryna Harvey, Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Shawn L. Naccarato, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before LAWRENCE E. MONEY, P.J. and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Meador (Movant) appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief (motion) after an evidentiary hearing. Movant pled guilty in Cause No. 02CR736360-01 to one count of second-degree assault, in violation of Section 565.060 . The plea court sentenced Movant to four years' imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Movant thereafter timely filed his pro se and amended motions alleging ineffective assistance of his plea counsel.
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. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no jurisprudential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.