Case ID: sw3d_39/html/0075-02.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

Bernerie ALLEN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.
    No. ED 77997.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
    March 6, 2001.
    Nancy L. Vincent, District Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    
      Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Andrea Mazza Follett, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before MARY K. HOFF, C.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and SULLIVAN, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bernerie Allen, movant, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On direct appeal, we affirmed movant’s convictions and sentences for first degree robbery in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo (1994), and first degree assault in violation of Section 565.050, RSMo 1994. State v. Allen, 954 S.W.2d 414 (Mo.App.1997).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).