Case Name: Jahmel GUY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of MISSOURI, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-01-23
Citations: 36 S.W.3d 431
Docket Number: No. ED 77966
Parties: Jahmel GUY, 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: 431–431

Head Matter:
Jahmel GUY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of MISSOURI, Respondent.
No. ED 77966.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Jan. 23, 2001.
Nancy L. Vincent, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Susan L. Brown, 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.
Jahmel Guy (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant contends the motion court erred in denying his postconviction motion in that (1) Movant's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object and move for a mistrial when the prosecutor incorrectly defined the term "deliberation" as a "choice" in closing argument, and (2) Movant's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to elicit from Movant during his testimony the fact that the victim pulled a gun on him in a separate incident one year prior to the shooting. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).