
    Michael W. STUART, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 86927.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Oct. 17, 2006.
    Michelle M. Rivera, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Roger W. Johnson, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and NANNETTE A. BAKER, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Stuart (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

In his sole point on appeal, Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction claim that his plea counsel was ineffective for misadvising him about the length of the sentence and his eligibility for long-term drug treatment instead of incarceration.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). 
      
      . All rule references are to Mo. Rules Crim. P.2004, unless otherwise indicated.
     