Case Name: Thomas McGEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2011-02-22
Citations: 331 S.W.3d 740
Docket Number: No. ED 94954
Parties: Thomas McGEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 331
Pages: 740–741

Head Matter:
Thomas McGEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 94954.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Feb. 22, 2011.
Lisa M. Stroup, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Thomas C. McGee ("Movant") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred in denying, without an evi-dentiary hearing, his claim that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) file a timely motion of alibi, timely endorse Movant's wife as a witness, and make an offer of proof; (2) endorse and call as a witness co-defendant Andrea Wilks; (3) preserve an appellate issue by moving to strike a police officer's testimony.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court's decision to deny Movant's Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).