Case Name: Virgil A. COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2014-09-09
Citations: 441 S.W.3d 207
Docket Number: No. ED 100545
Parties: Virgil A. COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KURT S. ODENWALD, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J„ and GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 441
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
Virgil A. COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 100545.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Sept. 9, 2014.
Ellen H. Flottman, Assistant Public Defender, Office of the Missouri Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Mary H. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before: KURT S. ODENWALD, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J„ and GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Virgil Cooper ("Cooper") appeals from the September 10, 2013 judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. Cooper argues that the motion court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because trial counsel were ineffective in failing to file a motion to suppress statements Cooper made to a law enforcement officer before he was informed of his Miranda rights.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jur isprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment of the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).