Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Cedric JACKSON, Defendant/Appellant; Cedric JACKSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-12-30
Citations: 963 S.W.2d 350
Docket Number: Nos. 68646, 71595
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Cedric JACKSON, Defendant/Appellant. Cedric JACKSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 963
Pages: 350–350

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Cedric JACKSON, Defendant/Appellant. Cedric JACKSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 68646, 71595.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Dec. 30, 1997.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 4, 1998.
Application to Transfer Denied April 21, 1998.
Dorothy M. Hirzy, Clayton, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Meghan J. Stephens, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
A juiy found defendant guilty of two counts of first degree robbery, section 569.020 RSMo 1994. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of ten and twelve years. Defendant filed a Rule 29.15 motion, which the motion court denied after an evi-dentiary hearing.
On appeal, defendant raises three points. One point alleges the trial court committed plain error in failing to correct statements made by the prosecuting attorney. The other two allege the motion court erred in denying him relief because his attorney was ineffective (1) for failure to properly interview an alibi witness and (2) for failure to investigate other possible exculpatory information. We affirm.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).