Case Name: Arthur STALLINGS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-03-19
Citations: 70 S.W.3d 627
Docket Number: No. ED 79757
Parties: Arthur STALLINGS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before JAMES R. DOWD, C.J., and PAUL J. SIMON and MARY R. RUSSELL, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 70
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
Arthur STALLINGS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 79757.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
March 19, 2002.
Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Anne E. Edgington, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before JAMES R. DOWD, C.J., and PAUL J. SIMON and MARY R. RUSSELL, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Arthur Stallings, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. He claims his trial counsel was ineffective for fading to impeach the State's two eyewitnesses with their own prior inconsistent statements.
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 opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).