¶1ORDER
¶2Movant, Wilson Camden, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evi-dentiary hearing. The judgment of conviction sought to be vacated was for possession of a controlled substance for which movant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years.
¶3The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.
¶4The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).