Case Name: Reno L. WHITT, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2019-05-07
Citations: 574 S.W.3d 339
Docket Number: No. ED 106786
Parties: Reno L. WHITT, Jr., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 574
Pages: 339–339

Head Matter:
Reno L. WHITT, Jr., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 106786
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: May 7, 2019
FOR APPELLANT: Amy E. Lowe, Missouri Public Defender Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
FOR RESPONDENT: Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Reno Whitt, Jr. ("Movant") appeals the motion court's denial of his Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 (2015) amended motion for postconviction relief. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred because he was convicted of tampering in the first degree and trial counsel failed to offer a jury instruction on tampering in the second degree. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only.
We affirm the judgment under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b)(2) (2018).