
    Arthur REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 99990.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    June 24, 2014.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 7, 2014.
    Andrew E. Zleit, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before LISA S. VAN AMBURG, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and PHILIP M. HESS, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Arthur Reed (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying his claims that: (1) defense counsel was ineffective in stipulating to the exclusion of a portion of the 911 telephone call; and (2) the prosecutor committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose the dispatch recording.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s decision to deny Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). 
      
      . Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
     