Case Name: Pietro Frank HICKEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-06-05
Citations: 367 S.W.3d 648
Docket Number: No. ED 96935
Parties: Pietro Frank HICKEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 367
Pages: 648–649

Head Matter:
Pietro Frank HICKEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 96935.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
June 5, 2012.
Gwenda Reneé Robinson, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Chris Koster, Atty. Gen., Mary H. Moore, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Pietro Frank Hickey, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing on remand. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).