¶1ORDER
¶2Movant, Darryl Davis, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Furthermore, no error of law appears as to mov-ant’s argument claiming the court erred in denying a continuance. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).