Case Name: Dana COTTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-05-23
Citations: 18 S.W.3d 540
Docket Number: No. ED 76508
Parties: Dana COTTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY RHODES RUSSELL, C.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, J., and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 18
Pages: 540–541

Head Matter:
Dana COTTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 76508.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
May 23, 2000.
Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Adriane D. Crouse, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before MARY RHODES RUSSELL, C.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, J., and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Dana Cotton (Movant) files this appeal challenging the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. A jury convicted Movant of second degree murder and this conviction was affirmed on appeal in State v. Cotton, 964 S.W.2d 883 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). Afterward, Movant filed a Rule 29.15 motion, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).