Case ID: sw2d_874/html/0515-01.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. Walter Edward HELGOTH, Defendant/Appellant. Walter Edward HELGOTH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
    Nos. 61257, 63029.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    March 15, 1994.
    Rehearing Denied April 11, 1994.
    Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Millie Aulbur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before CRANE, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Walter Helgoth appeals his conviction after a jury trial for use of a child in a sexual performance in violation of § 568.080 RSMo (1986) (Count I), promoting sexual performance by a child in violation of § 568.090 RSMo (1986) (Count II), promoting child pornography in violation of § 573.025 RSMo (1986) (Count III), abuse of a child in violation of § 568.060 RSMo (1986) (Count IV), and deviate sexual assault in violation of § 566.070 RSMo (1986) (Count V). Helgoth also appeals from an order denying his Rule 29.15 motion on the merits following an evi-dentiary hearing. The motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous.

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 is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).