Case Name: Richard PICKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-03-07
Citations: 185 S.W.3d 779
Docket Number: No. ED 86333
Parties: Richard PICKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 185
Pages: 779–780

Head Matter:
Richard PICKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 86333.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
March 7, 2006.
Thomas J. Forneris, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Deborah Daniels, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Richard Picker ("Movant") appeals from the judgment in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his appeal, Mov-ant argues that the motion court clearly erred when it denied his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because Movant pleaded facts which, if true, would warrant post conviction relief.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court's decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).