Case ID: sw3d_41/html/0559-01.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

Keith ROY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 77940.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Feb. 13, 2001.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 19, 2001.
    Application to Transfer Denied April 24, 2001.
    Mark A. Grothoff, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Andrea Mazza Follett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL, J., and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Keith Roy (Movant) was convicted following a bench trial of second degree murder, first degree robbery, three counts of first degree assault, and five counts of armed criminal action; on direct appeal this Court remanded for re-sentencing on two of the assault counts and the two corresponding armed criminal action counts, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. State v. Roy, 986 S.W.2d 923 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). Movant now appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. In his sole point on appeal Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assert on direct appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for robbery in the first degree (Count XIII) and the corresponding count of armed criminal action (Count XIV).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The motion court’s determination was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with an accompanying memorandum for their use only explaining the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).