Case Name: Tatizes COTTON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-03-10
Citations: 457 S.W.3d 381
Docket Number: ED 101428
Parties: Tatizes COTTON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 457
Pages: 381–381

Head Matter:
Tatizes COTTON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
ED 101428
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Filed: March 10, 2015
Ellen H. Flottman, Woodrail Centre, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203 For Movant/Appel-lant.
Todd T. Smith, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For RespondenVRespon-dent
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Tatizes Cotton appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. . We have reviewed the briefs of the'parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Brooks v. State, 242 S.W.3d 705, 708 (Mo.banc 2008). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).