ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Charles Nunley appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).