Case Name: Antonio TALIAFERRO, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-03-18
Citations: 100 S.W.3d 147
Docket Number: No. ED 81507
Parties: Antonio TALIAFERRO, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 100
Pages: 147–148

Head Matter:
Antonio TALIAFERRO, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 81507.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
March 18, 2003.
Douglas R. Hoff, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Dora A. Fichter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Antonio Taliaferro, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He contends he pleaded guilty involuntarily due to his plea attorney's false promise that the trial court would grant him probation.
Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum for their use only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).