ORDER

Phillip Goodwin appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Goodwin argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in cross-examining three of the State’s witnesses. The motion court’s findings and conclusions 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).