Case ID: sw2d_897/html/0212-02.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

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Antoinne OWENS, Appellant. Antoinne OWENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    Nos. 64150, 66945.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    May 2, 1995.
    Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered following his conviction for possession of a controlled substance in a correctional facility in violation of § 217.360.1(1) RSMo 1994. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

The variance between the trial court’s oral and written pronouncements of sentence was a clerical error which the trial court corrected in a nunc pro tunc order. Thus, Defendant’s challenge of his sentence is moot. Furthermore, we have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. A written opinion would have no precedential value nor would it serve any jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).