Case Name: Jonathan BROCK, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-05-03
Citations: 168 S.W.3d 555
Docket Number: No. ED 85528
Parties: Jonathan BROCK, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 168
Pages: 555–555

Head Matter:
Jonathan BROCK, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 85528.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
May 3, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 28, 2005.
Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 30, 2005.
Jonathan Brock, Charleston, pro se.
Deborah Daniels, Evan Joseph Buch-heim-co-counsel, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Jonathan Brock (Movant) appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that because Movant's motion did not allege facts, not refuted by the record, showing that trial counsel's performance did not conform to the degree of skill, care and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney, Movant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, and the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479, 497 (Mo. banc 1997); Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2005, unless otherwise indicated.