¶2Charles Smith appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.0351 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion *863court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Brooks v. State, 242 S.W.3d 705, 708 (Mo.banc 2008). An extended opinion would have no. precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
¶3. All rule references are to Mo. R. Crim. P. 2013, unless otherwise indicated.
