
    Darryl MERRITT, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
    No. 56087.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Nov. 7, 1989.
    John A. Klosterman, Columbia, for mov-ant-appellant.
    William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Ronald L. Jurgeson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).  