Case Name: Robert WINSLOW, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-06-03
Citations: 108 S.W.3d 100
Docket Number: No. ED 81341
Parties: Robert WINSLOW, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 108
Pages: 100–100

Head Matter:
Robert WINSLOW, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 81341.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
June 3, 2003.
Edward S. Thompson, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
John M. Morris III, Anne E. Edgington, Jefferson City, Mo, for Respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Robert Winslow, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We previously affirmed Movant's convictions on two counts of first-degree robbery in violation of section 569.020, RSMo 2000 and two counts of armed criminal action in violation of section 571.015, RSMo 2000. State v. Winslow, 53 S.W.3d 251 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). He now contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that both his trial attorney and his appellate attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the trial court's action of compelling Movant to testify.
Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).