Case Name: Miron TAYLOR, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-04-19
Citations: 161 S.W.3d 892
Docket Number: No. ED 84446
Parties: Miron TAYLOR, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J. and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J. and MARYK. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 161
Pages: 892–892

Head Matter:
Miron TAYLOR, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 84446.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
April 19, 2005.
Jessica M. Hathaway, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Dora A. Fichter, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J. and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J. and MARYK. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Miron Taylor (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error is without merit. The motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
The parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).