Case Name: James BAILEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-01-15
Citations: 64 S.W.3d 869
Docket Number: No. ED 79173
Parties: James BAILEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 64
Pages: 869–869

Head Matter:
James BAILEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 79173.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Jan. 15, 2002.
Raymund J. Capelovitch, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Andrew W. Hassell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, James Bailey, appeals the denial on the merits of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).