Case Name: Adam R. BRETHOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-09-26
Citations: 202 S.W.3d 45
Docket Number: No. ED 87170
Parties: Adam R. BRETHOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, SR. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 202
Pages: 45–45

Head Matter:
Adam R. BRETHOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 87170.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Sept. 26, 2006.
Michelle M. Rivera, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, SR. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Adam R. Brethold (Movant) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because he pleaded facts showing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Movant to testify at the hearing on his motion to suppress.
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 29.15(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).