Court Opinion

ID: 1764426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-30 07:20:44.876948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:55.900962
License: Public Domain

271 S.W.3d 42 (2008)
Osborne CANNON, Movant/Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 91070.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
November 12, 2008.
Gwenda R. Robinson, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jayne T. Woods, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Osborne Cannon, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by informing him that the court and prosecutor would not give him the opportunity to hire private counsel to represent him at trial.
The motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).