Case Name: Ezell CODY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-12-16
Citations: 122 S.W.3d 712
Docket Number: No. ED 82519
Parties: Ezell CODY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and MARY R. RUSSELL, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 122
Pages: 712–712

Head Matter:
Ezell CODY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 82519.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Dec. 16, 2003.
Jo Ann Rotermund, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Stephanie Morrell, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before: GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and MARY R. RUSSELL, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Ezell Cody ("Movant") pleaded guilty to forgery and two counts of second degree burglary and two counts of stealing over $750. He now appeals from the motion court's judgment and order denying his Rule 24.035 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment and sentence. Mov-ant raises two points on appeal. First, he alleges that the court erroneously issued a nunc pro tunc order amending his sentence in a previous cause. His second point argues that his waiver of post-conviction remedies was involuntary, unintelligent, and unknowing. 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 24.035(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).