Case Name: Christopher M. SANTILLAN, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-05-09
Citations: 51 S.W.3d 133
Docket Number: No. ED 78293
Parties: Christopher M. SANTILLAN, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, C.J. and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J., and DRAPER, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 51
Pages: 133–133

Head Matter:
Christopher M. SANTILLAN, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 78293.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
May 9, 2001.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 28, 2001.
Application for transfer Denied Aug. 21, 2001.
Nancy L. Vincent, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Adriane D. Crouse, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before MARY K. HOFF, C.J. and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J., and DRAPER, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Christopher M. Santillan (Movant) appeals the motion court's denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. Movant first claims the motion court erred because Movant's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to testimony and evidence of an Uzi, when the weapon used in the shooting was a .44 caliber weapon. In his second point, Movant claims the motion court erred because Movant's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to certain portions of the prosecutor's closing argument.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Rule 84.16(b). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to 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).