¶1ORDER
¶2George Kniest appeals the judgment dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the motion court’s judgment under Rule 84.16(b).