Case Name: Michael W. DUKE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-03-20
Citations: 42 S.W.3d 841
Docket Number: No. ED 78173
Parties: Michael W. DUKE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr, P.J, and MARY RHODES RUSSELL and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 42
Pages: 841–842

Head Matter:
Michael W. DUKE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 78173.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
March 20, 2001.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 19, 2001.
Application to Transfer Denied May 29, 2001.
Mark A. Grothoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Lisa Sutherland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr, P.J, and MARY RHODES RUSSELL and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Michael W. Duke (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postcon-viction relief. Movant contends the motion court erred (1) in denying his postconviction motion because Movant's trial counsel was ineffective in his failure to call Mov-ant's mother and Barbara Yarbough whose testimony would have established justification for Movant's actions, and (2) in failing to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each claim, thereby depriving Movant of the opportunity for meaningful appellate review. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).