Handley v. State

Full title: Roy HANDLEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Date published: Feb 11, 2014

422 S.W.3d 532 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)

Opinion

No. ED 99241.

2014-02-11

Roy HANDLEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Steven H. Goldman, Judge. Andrew E. Zleit, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant. Shawn J. Mackelprang, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Steven H. Goldman, Judge.
Andrew E. Zleit, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant. Shawn J. Mackelprang, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Roy Handley appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App.E.D.2011). 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).