Case Name: Steven M. SLAUGHTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-03-07
Citations: 185 S.W.3d 782
Docket Number: No. ED 86305
Parties: Steven M. SLAUGHTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 185
Pages: 782–783

Head Matter:
Steven M. SLAUGHTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 86305.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
March 7, 2006.
Maleaner R. Harvey, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Deborah Daniels Assistant Attorney General Jefferson City, MO for respondent.
Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Steven Slaughter (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 Motion for Post-Conviction Relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his appeal, Movant argues that the motion court clearly erred when it failed to find that the attorney who represented him at his jury trial on the charges of robbery in the first degree and armed criminal action rendered ineffective assistance. More specifically, Movant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to: (1) move to suppress the revolver used in the robbery and pictures of the revolver; and (2) object to a police officer's testimony that Movant admitted to owning the revolver for two years and carrying it for protection.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court's decision 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 award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).