Case Name: Lynette PETTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-11-25
Citations: 121 S.W.3d 268
Docket Number: No. ED 82304
Parties: Lynette PETTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. and MARY R. RUSSELL, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 121
Pages: 268–268

Head Matter:
Lynette PETTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 82304.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Nov. 25, 2003.
Lew Anthony Killias, Office of Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Andrea Mazza Follett, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. and MARY R. RUSSELL, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Lynette Petty (Petty) appeals from the motion court's denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction without an evi-dentiary hearing. Petty pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000. Petty was sentenced to concurrent ten-year terms of imprisonment. On appeal, Petty contends the motion court erred in denying her motion without an evidentiary hearing because her plea counsel was ineffective because he did not inform Petty about information learned from Johnny Miller which would have corroborated her testimony.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court's judgment is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum of law, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).