Case Name: Eric HELM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-02-14
Citations: 358 S.W.3d 586
Docket Number: No. ED 96345
Parties: Eric HELM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KURT S. ODENWALD, C.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and ROBERT M. CLAYTON, III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 358
Pages: 586–586

Head Matter:
Eric HELM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 96345.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Feb. 14, 2012.
Brocea Smith, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Chris Foster, Attorney General, Robert J. Bartholomew, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before: KURT S. ODENWALD, C.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and ROBERT M. CLAYTON, III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Eric Helm (Helm) appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing. Helm was convicted by a juiy on four counts of first-degree robbery and four counts of armed criminal action. The trial court prevented Helm from offering testimony relating to an alleged alibi because his trial counsel failed to give notice that Helm would offer an alibi. We affirmed Helm's conviction in State v. Helm, 281 S.W.3d 927 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). Helm subsequently sought relief under Mo. R.Crim. P. 29.15, 2009, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to give notice that Helm intended to offer an alibi. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion court denied Helm's motion, finding that Helm was not prejudiced by his counsel's action. Because Helm was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to give notice of an alibi, we affirm the motion court's judgment.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of prejudicial error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b)(2), 2011.