Case Name: Carjuan ADKINS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-02-26
Citations: 392 S.W.3d 533
Docket Number: No. ED 98257
Parties: Carjuan ADKINS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 392
Pages: 533–534

Head Matter:
Carjuan ADKINS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 98257.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Feb. 26, 2013.
Gwenda R. Robinson, St. Louis, MO, for Movant/Appellant.
Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent/Respondent.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Carjuan Adkins appeals from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15 without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). 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. 2011, unless otherwise indicated.