Aaron Niswonger appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our order. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(2)&(5).
Niswonger v. State, 545 S.W.3d 879 (2018)
Feb. 6, 2018
·
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FIVE
·
No. ED 105151
545 S.W.3d 879
Aaron NISWONGER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 105151
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FIVE.
Filed: February 6, 2018
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 22, 2018
Application for Transfer Denied May 22, 2018
Matthew J. Bell, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.
Joshua D. Hawley, Atty. Gen., Daniel N. McPherson, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Before James M. Dowd, C.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and Stanley J. Wallach, Sp.J.
ORDER