Case Name: Barry WILKEWITZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-11-02
Citations: 10 S.W.3d 164
Docket Number: No. ED 75269
Parties: Barry WILKEWITZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 10
Pages: 164–164

Head Matter:
Barry WILKEWITZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 75269.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Nov. 2, 1999.
Raymund J. Capelovitch, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kenneth P. Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant Barry Wilkewitz appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion 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).