Case Name: James E. BAILEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2009-04-28
Citations: 281 S.W.3d 927
Docket Number: No. ED 90874
Parties: James E. BAILEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 281
Pages: 927–927

Head Matter:
James E. BAILEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 90874.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
April 28, 2009.
Maleaner R. Harvey, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Karen L. Kramer, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, James Bailey, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not allowing him to testify at trial.
The motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).