Case Name: Joe L. HATCHETT, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-10-19
Citations: 4 S.W.3d 610
Docket Number: No. ED 75374
Parties: Joe L. HATCHETT, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANDALL, P.J. and KAROHL, J. and HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 4
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
Joe L. HATCHETT, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 75374.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Oct. 19, 1999.
S. Paige Canfield, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kristin M. Frazier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CRANDALL, P.J. and KAROHL, J. and HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Joe L. Hatchett (Movant) appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant contends the court did not have jurisdiction to impose a five-year sentence after expiration of his probationary period.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. The motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no jurisprudential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).