Case Name: Seneca WILLIAMS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-03-09
Citations: 129 S.W.3d 428
Docket Number: No. ED 82576
Parties: Seneca WILLIAMS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 129
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
Seneca WILLIAMS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 82576.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
March 9, 2004.
Maleaner Harvey, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Charnette D. Douglass, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Seneca Williams appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He alleged his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to interview two exculpatory witnesses.
Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).