Case Name: Brian MANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-02-21
Citations: 510 S.W.3d 898
Docket Number: No. ED 104188
Parties: Brian MANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Angela T. Quigless, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 510
Pages: 898–898

Head Matter:
Brian MANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 104188
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
Filed: February 21, 2017
Susan L. Hogan, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Evan J. Buchheim, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before Angela T. Quigless, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Brian Mann ("Movant") appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. On appeal, Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult with or hire an expert who could provide advice about, and testify regarding, blood spatter and spatter patterns, which would have enhanced his alibi defense. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. 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 MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).
. All rule references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2015) unless otherwise indicated.