Hatchett v. State

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joe L. Hatchett (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant contends the court did not have jurisdiction to impose a five-year sentence after expiration of his probationary period.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no jurisprudential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).