Summary
comparing the standard for an action to modify custody to the standard for an action to modify only a residential parenting schedule
Summary of this case from Gravatt v. BarczykowskiOpinion
No. ED 99140.
2013-11-26
Raymon C. HARRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Julian L. Bush, Judge. Gwenda R. Robinson, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant. Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Julian L. Bush, Judge.
Gwenda R. Robinson, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant. Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before LISA S. VAN AMBURG, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Raymon Harrell (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying his claim that his defense counsel was ineffective in failing to call two witnesses to testify at trial.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court's decision to deny Movant's Rule 29.15 motion was not clearly erroneous. 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).