Case Name: Lashawn WOOTEN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-08-29
Citations: 527 S.W.3d 188
Docket Number: No. ED 104668
Parties: Lashawn WOOTEN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 527
Pages: 188–188

Head Matter:
Lashawn WOOTEN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 104668
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
Filed: August 29, 2017
Andrew E. Zleit, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Mov-ant/Appellant.
Garrick F. D. Aplin, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Respondent/Respondent.
Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Lashawn Wooten appeals from the motion court's judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
. Mo. R. Crim. P. 2015.