Case Name: Victor SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-12-18
Citations: 68 S.W.3d 534
Docket Number: No. ED 78224
Parties: Victor SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before JAMES R. DOWD, C.J. and PAUL J. SIMON and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 68
Pages: 534–535

Head Matter:
Victor SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 78224.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Dec. 18, 2001.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 4, 2002.
Application for Transfer Denied March 19, 2002.
Mary S. Choi, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Susan L. Brown, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before JAMES R. DOWD, C.J. and PAUL J. SIMON and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Victor Santiago (movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief following his convictions of first degree assault in violation of Section 565.050 RSMo (2001), (all further references herein shall be to RSMo 2001 unless otherwise indicated), first degree burglary in violation of Section 569.160 and armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015. On appeal, mov-ant contends the motion court erred in denying his 29.15 motion after an eviden-tiary hearing because he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his trial counsel was ineffective because she failed to "vigorously pursue" his motion to suppress evidence.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. As an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).