Case Name: Kimmie WATTS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-06-04
Citations: 77 S.W.3d 52
Docket Number: No. ED 80217
Parties: Kimmie WATTS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 77
Pages: 52–52

Head Matter:
Kimmie WATTS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 80217.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
June 4, 2002.
Mark A. Grothoff, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stephanie Morrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Kimmie Watts, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We previously affirmed Movant's conviction on two counts of delivery of a controlled substance in violation of section 195.211, RSMo 2000. State v. Watts, 30 S.W.3d 249 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). He now contends his counsel provided ineffective assistance during plea negotiations.
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).