Case Name: Walter M. BROOKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-05-31
Citations: 490 S.W.3d 797
Docket Number: No. ED 102977
Parties: Walter M. BROOKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 490
Pages: 797–797

Head Matter:
Walter M. BROOKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 102977
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: May 31, 2016
FOR APPELLANT: Matthew W. Huckeby, Missouri Public Defender, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
FOR RESPONDENT: Shaun J. Mack-elprang, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.

Opinion:
. ORDER
PER CURIAM
Walter Brookins (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Movant claims the motion court erred when it determined that he was not denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Movant claims that (1) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assert on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him a continuánee to seek new trial counsel, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain informed consent from Movant prior to Mov-ant waiving his right to jury trial. Finding no error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).