Case Name: Charles J. LANCASTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-02-05
Citations: 68 S.W.3d 595
Docket Number: No. ED 79281
Parties: Charles J. LANCASTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 68
Pages: 595–595

Head Matter:
Charles J. LANCASTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 79281.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Feb. 5, 2002.
Patrick T. Conroy, Clayton, MO, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Nicole E. Gorovsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Supreme Court Building, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Charles Lancaster, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing. He claims: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the State's information was insufficient; and (2) his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance.
Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(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).