Case ID: sw3d_16/html/0661-01.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

Daniel W. LOEHR, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. 75673.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    Feb. 22, 2000.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 27, 2000.
    Application for Transfer Denied May 30, 2000.
    Dave Hemingway, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Barbara K. Chesser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant Daniel W. Loehr (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant asserts the trial court erred in failing to render findings on his challenge to the state’s breach of the jury-waiver agreement. Movant also asserts the trial court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing on the state’s breach of the jury-waiver agreement. Finally, movant contends the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing on post-conviction counsel abandonment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 80.25(b).