
    Stuart Lee HOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 77407.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Jan. 9, 2001.
    
      S. Paige Canfield, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Susan L. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J., and TEITELMAN, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stuart Hood (“Movant”) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29 .15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).  