Case ID: sw2d_882/html/0767-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mark JACKSON, a/k/a Anthony Williams, Defendant/Appellant. Mark JACKSON, a/k/a Anthony Williams, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
    Nos. 62945, 65135.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Sept. 6, 1994.
    Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before REINHARD, P.J., and CRIST and CRAHAN, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, of burglary in the second degree, § 569.170, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced by the court as a prior, persistent and class X offender to sixteen years of imprisonment. Defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief was denied after an evi-dentiary hearing. This is a consolidated appeal by the defendant of both the conviction and denial of motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).