Case Name: Ernest MING, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-08-22
Citations: 198 S.W.3d 657
Docket Number: No. ED 86742
Parties: Ernest MING, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 198
Pages: 657–657

Head Matter:
Ernest MING, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 86742.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Aug. 22, 2006.
S. Paige Canfield, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Robert J. (Jeff) Bartholomew, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Ernest Ming ("Movant"), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was found guilty, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, section 565.021, RSMo 2000, two counts of robbery in the first degree, section 569.020, and three counts of armed criminal action, section 571.015. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment of the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.
. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.