
    Anthony WOOTEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. 71872.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    Nov. 25, 1997.
    Dave Hemingway, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before AHRENS, P.J., and CRANDALL and KAROHL, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find the determination of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. However, we have attached a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).  