Vincent Hood appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his motion filed pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.15 (2015). We have reviewed the *930briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court's denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). 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) (2017).
Hood v. State, 548 S.W.3d 929 (2018)
June 12, 2018
·
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE
·
ED 105578
548 S.W.3d 929
Vincent HOOD, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
ED 105578
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
Filed: June 12, 2018
Gwenda R. Robinson, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.
Joshua D. Hawley, Garrick F. D. Aplin, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Before: Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.
ORDER