ORDER

Eugene Wallace (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the. motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 after an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to assert his rights to a speedy trial. Movant also argues that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss the criminal charges for prosecuto-rial misconduct.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).