Case Name: Aaron M. BALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2018-09-25
Citations: 556 S.W.3d 679
Docket Number: No. ED 105909
Parties: Aaron M. BALL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 556
Pages: 679–679

Head Matter:
Aaron M. BALL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 105909
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
Filed: September 25, 2018
FOR APPELLANTS: Kevin L. Schriener, 141 North Meramec Avenue, Suite 314, Clayton, Missouri 63105.
FOR RESPONDENTS: Julia E. Neidhardt, Joshua Hawley, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Aaron Ball appeals the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. He claims that the motion court erred because his plea counsel and probation revocation counsel were ineffective. We disagree and affirm.
The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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).