
    Andre FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 102477
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
    
    Filed: April 19, 2016
    Srikant Chigurupati, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, for Appellant.
    Chris Foster, Colette Elaine Neuner, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, for Respondent.
    Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

Foster filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief claiming that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because his trial counsel promised him that he would receive a sentence of no more than ten years by pleading guilty. The motion court denied Foster’s motion after an evi-dentiary hearing. Finding no clear error, we affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not cleaiiy erroneous. 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 this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).  