Case Name: Maverick BLUFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-12-11
Citations: 387 S.W.3d 411
Docket Number: No. ED 98272
Parties: Maverick BLUFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and ROY L. RICHTER and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 387
Pages: 411–411

Head Matter:
Maverick BLUFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 98272.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Dec. 11, 2012.
Deborah B. Wafer, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Todd T. Smith, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and ROY L. RICHTER and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Maverick Bluford ("Movant") appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief because his plea counsel was ineffective for promising him that if he pleaded guilty to the burglary and stealing charges, he would receive probation.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).