Case Name: Andre MOSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-08-22
Citations: 25 S.W.3d 628
Docket Number: No. ED 77019
Parties: Andre MOSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J., and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 25
Pages: 628–628

Head Matter:
Andre MOSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 77019.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Aug. 22, 2000.
Nancy L. Vincent, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Catherine Chatman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before: ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J., and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.
The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the 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.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).