Case Name: Larry B. DIETZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2014-12-16
Citations: 449 S.W.3d 829
Docket Number: No. ED 101608
Parties: Larry B. DIETZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Patricia L. Cohen, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Robert M. Clayton III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 449
Pages: 829–830

Head Matter:
Larry B. DIETZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 101608
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
Filed: December 16, 2014
Larry B. Dietz (pro se), Pinal County Adult Correctional Center, 971 Jason Lopez Circle, Florence, AZ 85132, for appellant.
Dora A. Fichter, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jeffersón City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Before Patricia L. Cohen, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Robert M. Clayton III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Larry Dietz (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his claims that his defense counsel was ineffective in: (1) waiving Movant's right to a speedy trial under the Interstate Agreement on De-tainers (IAD), Mo.Rev.Stat. § 217.490; and (2) failing to "argue" that the statute of limitations barred prosecution of the forcible sodomy charge against him.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court's decision to deny Movant's Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).