Durham v. State

Full title: Dayton DURHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Date published: Oct 15, 2019

589 S.W.3d 106 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019)

Opinion

No. ED 107481

10-15-2019

Dayton DURHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

FOR APPELLANT, Ellen H. Flottman, Public Defender’s Office, Woodrail Centre, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203. FOR RESPONDENT, Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, Nathan J. Aquino, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

PER CURIAM.

FOR APPELLANT, Ellen H. Flottman, Public Defender’s Office, Woodrail Centre, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

FOR RESPONDENT, Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, Nathan J. Aquino, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Roy L. Richter, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM. Dayton Durham appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).