Case Name: Mark David BOYER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-11-22
Citations: 176 S.W.3d 726
Docket Number: No. ED 85984
Parties: Mark David BOYER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before NANNETTE A. BAKER, P.J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 176
Pages: 726–727

Head Matter:
Mark David BOYER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 85984.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Nov. 22, 2005.
Timothy J. Forneris, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before NANNETTE A. BAKER, P.J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Mark David Boyer (Movant) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because Movant alleged facts showing (1) there was no factual basis to find that Movant committed the charged crimes, and (2) his plea counsel was ineffective for misinforming Movant that he would serve only 48 to 68 months in prison in exchange for his guilty plea.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).