Herron v. State

ORDER PER CURIAM. James Herron (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15 following an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).