Case Name: Connie PAIR, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-05-17
Citations: 164 S.W.3d 106
Docket Number: No. ED 84010
Parties: Connie PAIR, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J. and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J. and MARY K HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 164
Pages: 106–107

Head Matter:
Connie PAIR, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 84010.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
May 17, 2005.
Henry Cummings, St. Charles, MO, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J. and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J. and MARY K HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Connie Pair (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing.
Movant pleaded guilty to one count of murder in the second degree in violation of Section 565.021 RSMo 1986. The trial court sentenced Movant to a term of imprisonment for twenty-five years. Movant thereafter filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. This appeal follows.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2); Rule 24.035(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).