Case Name: Darrell M. ROGERS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2011-06-14
Citations: 342 S.W.3d 441
Docket Number: No. ED 94855
Parties: Darrell M. ROGERS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 342
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
Darrell M. ROGERS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 94855.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
June 14, 2011.
Jessica M. Hathaway Office of the State Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Evan J. Buchheim, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Darrell M. Rogers, appeals from a judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing on one of his two claims. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).