Case Name: Emile HENRY II, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-12-19
Citations: 209 S.W.3d 50
Docket Number: No. ED 87685
Parties: Emile HENRY II, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 209
Pages: 50–50

Head Matter:
Emile HENRY II, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 87685.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Dec. 19, 2006.
Michelle Murphy Rivera, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Shaun J. Maekelprang, Karen L. Kramer, Stephanie Morrell, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Emile Henry II (hereinafter, "Movant") appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his post-conviction motion pursuant to Rule 29.15 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of two counts of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced to serve two terms of fifteen years' imprisonment, to run consecutively. This Court affirmed Movant's conviction on appeal. State v. Henry, 165 S.W.3d 498 (Mo.App. E.D.2005).
Movant raises one point on appeal. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion in that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when counsel failed raise a point of error regarding the prosecutor's comments during closing argument. Mov-ant claims these comments impermissibly shifted the burden of proof and indirectly reference his failure to testify, resulting in prejudice.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the motion court's decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).