Case Name: Julius MASSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-10-02
Citations: 57 S.W.3d 345
Docket Number: No. ED 78587
Parties: Julius MASSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., MARY R. RUSSELL, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 57
Pages: 345–346

Head Matter:
Julius MASSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 78587.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Oct. 2, 2001.
Mary S. Choi, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Andrea Fol-lett, Asst. Atty., Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., MARY R. RUSSELL, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Julius Massey (Movant), appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. He alleges his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in: (1) failing to object to verdict directing instructions containing allegations that were not supported by the evidence; and (2) failing to inform the court that the jury had seen Movant in shackles when he was being transported.
Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).