Case Name: James HEMPHILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-09-04
Citations: 377 S.W.3d 613
Docket Number: No. ED 97023
Parties: James HEMPHILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., C.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and ROBERT M. CLAYTON III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 377
Pages: 613–613

Head Matter:
James HEMPHILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 97023.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Sept. 4, 2012.
Caroline Austin, Cape Girardeau, MO, for appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Dora A. Fichter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., C.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and ROBERT M. CLAYTON III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
James J. Hemphill appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Hemphill's claim for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).