Case Name: Harold FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2014-11-25
Citations: 448 S.W.3d 875
Docket Number: No. ED 100786
Parties: Harold FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Patricia L. Cohen, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Robert M. Clayton III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 448
Pages: 875–875

Head Matter:
Harold FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 100786
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FOUR
Filed: November 25, 2014
Robert W. Lundt, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before Patricia L. Cohen, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Robert M. Clayton III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Harold Ford (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying his claims that trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) "laboring under an actual conflict of interest"; (2) failing to impeach a witness; and (8) failing to call a witness.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court's decision to deny Movant's Rule 29.15 motion was not clearly erroneous. 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 judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).