Case Name: John T. SLAVEN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-08-20
Citations: 83 S.W.3d 69
Docket Number: No. ED 80051
Parties: John T. SLAVEN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and JAMES R. DOWD, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 83
Pages: 69–70

Head Matter:
John T. SLAVEN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 80051.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Aug. 20, 2002.
Scott Thompson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Dora A. Fichter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and JAMES R. DOWD, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, John T. Slaven, appeals from the judgment denying, without an eviden-tiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We previously af firmed Movant's conviction on three counts of statutory sodomy in violation of section 566.060, RSMo Cum.Supp.1993. State v. Slaven, 34 S.W.3d 192 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). He now contends his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the trial court's prohibition against the use of a visual aid.
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 opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).