¶1 ORDER
¶2 Rebecca Siliven appeals the judgment denying her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Siliven’s motion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision.
¶3 We affirm the judgment of the motion court under Rule 84.16(b).