Case Name: John Edward TYLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-09-20
Citations: 175 S.W.3d 160
Docket Number: No. ED 85446
Parties: John Edward TYLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 175
Pages: 160–161

Head Matter:
John Edward TYLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 85446.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Sept. 20, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 2, 2005.
Delores M. Berman, Chesterfield, MO, for appellant.
Deborah Daniels, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
John Edward Tyler ("Movant") appeals from the judgment of the St. Charles County Circuit Court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because his trial counsel failed to: (1) call Marguerite Gray, who would have testified to the victim AMG's reputation for untruthfulness; (2) use AMG's medical records to impeach her (3) object to testimony about his extra-marital affairs.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court's decision was not clearly erroneous. Helmig v. State, 42 S.W.3d 658, 665-66 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).