Carson v. State

ORDER

PER CURIAM

William Carson (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) locate and call a witness at trial; and (2) limit testimony regarding his alleged prior misconduct. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).