Case Name: Bertha OWENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-10-02
Citations: 57 S.W.3d 345
Docket Number: No. ED 77933
Parties: Bertha OWENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, 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: 57
Pages: 345–345

Head Matter:
Bertha OWENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 77933.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Oct. 2, 2001.
Susan Kister, Asst. Public Defender, Clayton, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Andre Mazza Follet, Asst. Atty. Gen., 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.
Appellant, Bertha Owens, appeals the judgment denying her Rule 29 .15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. She contends her trial attorney provided ineffective assistance. 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).
. All Rule references are to the Missouri Court Rules (2001).