Case Name: Stephen M. BARRIENTEZ, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2019-06-11
Citations: 576 S.W.3d 614
Docket Number: No. ED 106907
Parties: Stephen M. BARRIENTEZ, Movant/Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 576
Pages: 614–614

Head Matter:
Stephen M. BARRIENTEZ, Movant/Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 106907
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
FILED: June 11, 2019
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Kristina Starke Olson, Office of the State Court Public Defender, 1010 Market, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Eric Schmitt, Attorney General, Nathan Jeremy Aquino, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Stephen M. Barrientez ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment denying, after an evidentiary hearing, Movant's Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).