Case Name: Tizzy DICKERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2014-05-06
Citations: 430 S.W.3d 333
Docket Number: No. ED 100142
Parties: Tizzy DICKERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before LISA S. VAN AMBURG, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and PHILIP M. HESS, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 430
Pages: 333–334

Head Matter:
Tizzy DICKERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 100142.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
May 6, 2014.
Timothy J. Forneris, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Evan J. Buchheim, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before LISA S. VAN AMBURG, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and PHILIP M. HESS, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Tizzy Dickerson (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying without an evidentia-ry hearing her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant asserts that the motion court erred in denying her claims that counsel provided ineffective assistance in: (1) failing to object and request a mistrial or curative instruction when the prosecutor misstated the law in closing argument; and (2) failing to object when the prosecutor argued facts outside the record and improperly personalized closing argument.
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 judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).