Case Name: Billy B. FIELDS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-10-08
Citations: 87 S.W.3d 867
Docket Number: No. ED 80526
Parties: Billy B. FIELDS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and MARY K. HOFF, J. and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 87
Pages: 867–868

Head Matter:
Billy B. FIELDS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 80526.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Oct. 8, 2002.
Irene Earns, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Dora A. Fichter, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and MARY K. HOFF, J. and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Billy B. Fields, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We previously affirmed Movant's convictions for second degree arson in violation of section 569.050, RSMo 2000, unlawful use of a weapon in violation of section 571.030.1(4), RSMo 2000, and second degree burglary in violation of section 569.170, RSMo 2000. State v. Fields, 39 S.W.3d 572 (Mo.App.E.D.2001). He now contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to call him to testify on his own behalf.
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 opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).