Case Name: Steven BARNETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-02-24
Citations: 455 S.W.3d 485
Docket Number: No. ED 101496
Parties: Steven BARNETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Patricia L. Cohen, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Robert M. Clayton III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 455
Pages: 485–485

Head Matter:
Steven BARNETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 101496
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
Filed: February 24, 2015
Lisa M. Stroup, Assistant Public Defender, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 68101, for appellant.
Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Before Patricia L. Cohen, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Robert M. Clayton III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Steven Barnett (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. Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to introduce certain evidence; (2) failing to object during the State's cross-examination; (3) adducing prejudicial evidence; and (4) failing to call witnesses to testify at his sentencing hearing.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court's decision to deny Movant's Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing 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).