Case Name: Stuart Lee HOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-01-09
Citations: 34 S.W.3d 870
Docket Number: No. ED 77407
Parties: Stuart Lee HOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J., and TEITELMAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 34
Pages: 870–871

Head Matter:
Stuart Lee HOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 77407.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Jan. 9, 2001.
S. Paige Canfield, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Susan L. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J., and TEITELMAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Stuart Hood ("Movant") appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29 .15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).