Case Name: Frannizco PEET, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-10-31
Citations: 30 S.W.3d 249
Docket Number: No. ED 77347
Parties: Frannizco PEET, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, Jr., and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 30
Pages: 249–249

Head Matter:
Frannizco PEET, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 77347.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Oct. 31, 2000.
Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Linda Lemke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, Jr., and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Frannizco Peet (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.16 without a hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).