Case Name: Richard CREWS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-01-23
Citations: 36 S.W.3d 419
Docket Number: No. ED 77917
Parties: Richard CREWS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., and MARY RHODES RUSSELL and TEITELMAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 36
Pages: 419–419

Head Matter:
Richard CREWS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 77917.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Jan. 23, 2001.
Mary S. Choi, S. Paige Canfield, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stacy L. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., and MARY RHODES RUSSELL and TEITELMAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Richard Crews (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing following a remand to the motion court for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on three of Movant's allegations. Movant now appeals after remand. However, Movant's sole point was already addressed in his previous appeal and, thus, the law of the case doctrine applies. See State v. Graham, 13 S.W.3d 290, 293 (Mo. banc 2000). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum of law, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).