Bruce Shockley appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15. In his sole point on appeal, he claims the evidence showed that if his counsel had investigated and presented relevant evidence that there is a reasonable probability the outcome of his case would have been different. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided *53to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Shockley v. State, 541 S.W.3d 52 (2018)
March 6, 2018
·
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
·
WD 80334
541 S.W.3d 52
Bruce T. SHOCKLEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
WD 80334
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Order filed: March 6, 2018
Natalie H. Hoge, for Appellant.
Karen L. Kramer, Jefferson City, for Respondent.
Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge and Karen King Mitchell, Judge
ORDER