Case Name: Douglas HORN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-02-19
Citations: 68 S.W.3d 602
Docket Number: No. ED 79750
Parties: Douglas HORN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., J., and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 68
Pages: 602–603

Head Matter:
Douglas HORN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 79750.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Feb. 19, 2002.
Mark A. Grothoff, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Joel A. Block, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., J., and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Douglas Horn, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an eviden-tiary hearing. We previously affirmed Movant's convictions for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and attempt to manufacture a controlled substance. State v. Horn, 5 S.W.3d 518 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). He now contends his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.
Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).