Case Name: Howard SKAGGS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-06-22
Citations: 136 S.W.3d 845
Docket Number: No. ED 83360
Parties: Howard SKAGGS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 136
Pages: 845–846

Head Matter:
Howard SKAGGS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 83360.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
June 22, 2004.
Scott Thompson, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Richard A. Starnes, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Howard Skaggs appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We previously affirmed his convictions for forgery and escape from confinement in violation of sections 570.090.1 and 575.210, RSMo 2000, respectively. State v. Skaggs, 74 S.W.3d 282 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). He now contends that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance in that she had an actual conflict of interest.
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 setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).