Case Name: Jamikeo THOMPSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-06-20
Citations: 520 S.W.3d 828
Docket Number: ED 104454
Parties: Jamikeo THOMPSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Colleen Dolan, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 520
Pages: 828–828

Head Matter:
Jamikeo THOMPSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
ED 104454
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: June 20, 2017
Andrew E. Zleit, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Movant/Appellant.
Dora A. Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Respondent/Respondent.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Jamikeo Thompson appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
. All rule references are to Mo. R. Crim. P. 2015, unless otherwise indicated.