Case Name: Larry HASSELL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-11-12
Citations: 90 S.W.3d 527
Docket Number: No. ED 80476
Parties: Larry HASSELL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J„ and GLENN E. NORTON, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 90
Pages: 527–527

Head Matter:
Larry HASSELL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 80476.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Nov. 12, 2002.
Edward Thompson, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Adriane Crouse, Assistant Attorney
General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J„ and GLENN E. NORTON, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Larry Hassell (Movant) appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant contends that he entered his guilty pleas unknowingly because his counsel failed to inform him that a life sentence if he went to trial was life with the possibility of parole.
Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude that the motion court's judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).