Case Name: Andrew G. BERNHARDT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-08-27
Citations: 412 S.W.3d 359
Docket Number: No. ED 98925
Parties: Andrew G. BERNHARDT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 412
Pages: 359–360

Head Matter:
Andrew G. BERNHARDT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 98925.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Aug. 27, 2013.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 10, 2013.
Application for Transfer Denied Nov. 26, 2013.
Gwenda R. Robinson, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Karen L. Kramer, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Andrew Bernhardt ("Movant") appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) call Movant to testify; (2) object to Instruction Five; and (3) invoke his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial. In addition, Movant contends his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assert on appeal that the trial court plainly erred in submitting Instruction Five.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).