Case Name: Eugene BURRELL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2014-08-19
Citations: 438 S.W.3d 514
Docket Number: No. ED 100241
Parties: Eugene BURRELL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before LISA S. VAN AMBURG, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and PHILIP M. HESS, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 438
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
Eugene BURRELL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 100241.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Aug. 19, 2014.
Maleaner R. Harvey, Missouri Public Defenders Office, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before LISA S. VAN AMBURG, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and PHILIP M. HESS, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Eugene Burrell (Movant) appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that his trial attorneys were ineffective for: (1) failing to request a lesser-included offense jury instruction; (2) failing to offer a modified version of the self-defense instruction; and (3) failing to make adequate offers of proof at trial regarding his videotaped statement to police and a 911 call. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memo randum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).