RICHTER v. STATE (2019)

Order

Shelly Richter appeals from the judgment denying her Rule 29.15 motion after she was convicted of first-degree child endangerment. Richter contends the motion court erroneously denied her claim that her counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the admissibility of certain opinions offered by the State’s expert witnesses. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. We have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision because a published opinion would have no precedential value.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b)

Per Curiam