Case Name: Roger D. MOOREHEAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-03-16
Citations: 129 S.W.3d 441
Docket Number: No. ED 82651
Parties: Roger D. MOOREHEAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, Sr., P.J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr. and MARY R. RUSSELL, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 129
Pages: 441–441

Head Matter:
Roger D. MOOREHEAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 82651.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
March 16, 2004.
Jo Ann Rotermund, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Shaun J. Mackelprang, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, Sr., P.J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr. and MARY R. RUSSELL, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Roger Dale Moorehead (Movant) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred (1) in failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether Movant had been adequately informed of the ranges of punishment, and (2) in denying his motion because Movant was credible and he met his burden of proof. Movant also requests review of his claim that the plea court plainly erred in accepting Movant's guilty plea to armed criminal action without a sufficient factual basis.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. Furthermore, the motion court's decision is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum of law, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).