Crusoe v. State

328 S.W.3d 321, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1397, 2010 WL 4075764

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Eli Crusoe, Sr., appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing because he alleged facts not conclusively refuted by the record which, if proven, would entitle him to relief in that the sentencing court considered improper factors in arriving at a twenty-year sentence for armed criminal action.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).