Case Name: Dennis HINKLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-08-29
Citations: 25 S.W.3d 691
Docket Number: No. ED 77118
Parties: Dennis HINKLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J, and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 25
Pages: 691–691

Head Matter:
Dennis HINKLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 77118.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Aug. 29, 2000.
Mary S. Choi, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Gregory L. Barnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J, and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Dennis Hinkle (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without a hearing. We affirmed Movant's conviction for first degree tampering, section 569.080.1(2), RSMo 1994, on direct appeal. State v. Hinkle, 987 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). Movant now challenges the failure of his counsel to object to evidence of other crimes.
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 exclusive use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).