Paden v. State

ORDER

Jermaine Paden appeals the circuit court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Paden claims that the circuit court clearly erred in denying his motion because his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).