Case Name: Anthony TATUM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-05-07
Citations: 75 S.W.3d 297
Docket Number: No. ED 80083
Parties: Anthony TATUM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., MARY R. RUSSELL, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 75
Pages: 297–297

Head Matter:
Anthony TATUM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 80083.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
May 7, 2002.
Jennifer S. Walsh, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stephanie Morrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before: GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., MARY R. RUSSELL, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Anthony Tatum ("Movant") files this appeal from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim, without a hearing, that his counsel was ineffective for promising him that he would receive less than the 20 years the State had recommended.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's decision 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).