Case Name: Ronald HOLMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-10-31
Citations: 204 S.W.3d 694
Docket Number: No. ED 87381
Parties: Ronald HOLMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 204
Pages: 694–695

Head Matter:
Ronald HOLMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 87381.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Oct. 31, 2006.
Timothy J. Forneris, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Shaun J. Mackelprang, Cecily L. Daller, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Holman (hereinafter, "Movant") appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 after an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant claims his trial counsel denied him effective assistance of counsel by failing to investigate, subpoena, and call an alibi witness at trial.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the Movant's claim 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).