Clark v. State , 204 S.W.3d 695 ( 2006 )

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Marcel Clark, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not moving to suppress and not objecting at trial to the victim’s identification of him.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).