ORDER

Carl Watkins-Israyl appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry 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).