Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Quinton PITTMAN, Appellant; Quinton PITTMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-06-03
Citations: 946 S.W.2d 276
Docket Number: No. 69540
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Quinton PITTMAN, Appellant. Quinton PITTMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 946
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Quinton PITTMAN, Appellant. Quinton PITTMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 69540.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
June 3, 1997.
Ellen H. Flottman, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Lisa A. Fischer, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Quinton Pittman, appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis after a jury found him guilty of one count of attempted murder in the second degree, RSMo § 564.011 (1994), one count of assault in the second degree, RSMo § 565.060 (1994), and two counts of armed criminal action, RSMo § 571.015 (1994). He also appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal files and find the judgment of conviction is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. We further find the judgment denying the Rule 29.15 motion is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgments pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).