Case Name: Claude WILLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-04-18
Citations: 18 S.W.3d 116
Docket Number: No. ED 76861
Parties: Claude WILLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 18
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
Claude WILLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 76861.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
April 18, 2000.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 30, 2000.
Application for Transfer Denied June 27, 2000.
Mark A. Grothoff, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Susan K. Glass, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant Claude Willis appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief on the merits without an evidentiary hearing. The convictions and sentences sought to be vacated were for one count of attempted rape, one count of kidnapping, and one count of armed criminal action. On direct appeal, the judgment convicting Movant was affirmed. See State v. Willis, 970 S.W.2d 912 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). Movant argues (1) that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for kidnapping and armed criminal action on direct appeal; and (2) that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence of the victim's prior drug use and convictions.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. The motion court's determination was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).