¶1 ORDER
¶2 Kerwin Scott appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Scott’s request for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
¶3 An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum sét-ting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).