Fox v. State

ORDER

Charles Scott Fox (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his motion to reopen his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant asserts the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion to reopen his Rule 29.15 motion because Mov-ant pleaded facts showing he was abandoned by his post-conviction counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for…