Case Name: Harold BAKER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-11-30
Citations: 11 S.W.3d 699
Docket Number: No. ED 76050
Parties: Harold BAKER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 11
Pages: 699–699

Head Matter:
Harold BAKER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 76050.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Nov. 30, 1999.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 7, 2000.
Application for Transfer Denied March 21, 2000.
Nancy L. Vincent, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Harold Baker (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postcon-viction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing in that (1) Movant's allegation that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to brief and argue on appeal the trial court's denial of defense counsel's motion to withdraw and motion for mistrial, and (2) the trial court committed plain error when it permitted the prosecutor to misdefine the term "deliberation" during closing argument. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).