ORDER

Richard Eichelberger (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Mov-ant claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the trial *791 court that the court was required to run Movant’s ten-year sentence concurrently with the Movant’s two concurrent Illinois sentences for similar crimes.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).