Case Name: Joseph W. WALTER III, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-04-09
Citations: 72 S.W.3d 598
Docket Number: No. ED 79912
Parties: Joseph W. WALTER III, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 72
Pages: 598–599

Head Matter:
Joseph W. WALTER III, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 79912.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
April 9, 2002.
Scott Thompson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Dora A. Fichter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Joseph Walter, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court's judgment is based on findings and conclusions that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).