ORDER

Raymond Hardge appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not err in denying Hardge’s motion without an evi-dentiary hearing because the facts alleged did not warrant relief and his plea was made voluntarily and intelligently.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. *614 We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).