"{\"id\": \"11747795\", \"name\": \"West FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Ford v. State\", \"decision_date\": \"1994-06-07\", \"docket_number\": \"No. 65150\", \"first_page\": \"216\", \"last_page\": \"216\", \"citations\": \"877 S.W.2d 216\", \"volume\": \"877\", \"reporter\": \"South Western Reporter Second Series\", \"court\": \"Missouri Court of Appeals\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Missouri\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-11T00:19:04.290240+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"Before GARY M. GAERTNER, C.J., and PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ.\", \"parties\": \"West FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.\", \"head_matter\": \"West FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.\\nNo. 65150.\\nMissouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.\\nJune 7, 1994.\\nS. Paige Canfield, St. Louis, for appellant.\\nJeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.\\nBefore GARY M. GAERTNER, C.J., and PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ.\", \"word_count\": \"172\", \"char_count\": \"1058\", \"text\": \"ORDER\\nPER CURIAM.\\nAppellant, West Ford, appeals from the November 18, 1993, dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. We affirm.\\nWe have reviewed the briefs and arguments of the parties, as well as the transcript and the legal file, and find no clear error in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the-motion court. In addition, we find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We, therefore, affirm the judgement of the trial court pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum, solely for their own information, setting forth the reasons for our decision.\"}"