Case Name: Anthony L. CARROLL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2018-03-27
Citations: 551 S.W.3d 490
Docket Number: No. ED 105425
Parties: Anthony L. CARROLL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 551
Pages: 490–490

Head Matter:
Anthony L. CARROLL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 105425
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
FILED: March 27, 2018
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 30, 2018
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 21, 2018
Lisa M. Stroup, 1000 STL Union Station, Ste 300, St. Louis, MO 63103, for appellant.
Joshua Hawley, Shaun J. Mackelprang, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Anthony L. Carroll ("Carroll") appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion seeking post-conviction relief. A jury found Carroll guilty of multiple felonies after he robbed and sodomized Victim during a home invasion. Carroll presents three points on appeal. Point One contends that the motion court erred in denying Carroll's request on remand to reappoint post-conviction counsel and permit amendment of his Rule 29.15 motion. Point Two asserts that the motion court clearly erred in rejecting Carroll's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because defense counsel failed to impeach Victim with Victim's medical records. Point Three challenges the sufficiency of the motion court's judgment.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).