Case Name: Russell STAGNER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-04-23
Citations: 72 S.W.3d 619
Docket Number: No. ED 79717
Parties: Russell STAGNER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 72
Pages: 619–619

Head Matter:
Russell STAGNER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 79717.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
April 23, 2002.
Mark A. Grothoff, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Sara L. Trower, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Russell Stagner, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits 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 that the motion court's judgment is based on findings of facts and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, which sets forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).