Case Name: Felicia SMITH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-05-16
Citations: 518 S.W.3d 283
Docket Number: ED 104488
Parties: Felicia SMITH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Colleen Dolan, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 518
Pages: 283–284

Head Matter:
Felicia SMITH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
ED 104488
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: May 16, 2017
Timothy J. Forneris, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Movant/Appellant.
Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Respondent/Respondent.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

Opinion:
ORDER .
PER CURIAM.
Felicia Smith appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for then.- use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
. All rule references are to Mo. R. Crim. P. 2015, unless otherwise indicated.