Case Name: William BEXTEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-08-07
Citations: 51 S.W.3d 550
Docket Number: No. ED 78588
Parties: William BEXTEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., MARY R. RUSSELL, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 51
Pages: 550–550

Head Matter:
William BEXTEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 78588.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Aug. 7, 2001.
Mark A. Grothoff, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Lisa Sutherland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., MARY R. RUSSELL, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
William Bexten appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We previously affirmed Movant's conviction for felony driving while intoxicated in violation of section 577.010 RSMo 2000. State v. Bexten, 2 S.W.3d 852 (Mo.App.1999). He now argues the motion court clearly erred because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise two valid issues in a motion for new trial.
Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).