Case Name: Kenneth D. OVERTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2018-04-10
Citations: 552 S.W.3d 673
Docket Number: No. ED 105823
Parties: Kenneth D. OVERTON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 552
Pages: 673–673

Head Matter:
Kenneth D. OVERTON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 105823
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
Filed: April 10, 2018
Rehearing Denied May 14, 2018
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 14, 2018
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 21, 2018
Kenneth D. Overton, Appellant acting Pro Se, For Plaintiff/Appellant.
Dora A. Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Defendant/Respondent.
Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth D. Overton ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment finding that he was not abandoned by his post-conviction counsel. Movant offers four points on appeal, and alleges that the motion court clearly erred in numerous ways. Specifically, Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred in finding he was not abandoned by his post-conviction counsel; in denying Movant's motion to appoint "independent conflict-free" counsel without a hearing; in denying Movant's motion to unseal and disclose the jury list and questionnaires; and in failing to inquire into Movant's request to proceed pro se. The motion court did not clearly err in finding that Movant was not abandoned by his post-conviction counsel or in any other way. Movant's pro se motion for post-conviction relief was untimely filed, thereby barring him from seeking such relief. We affirm the judgment of the motion court.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).