Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Sidney HARRIS, Appellant; Sidney HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1994-02-15
Citations: 870 S.W.2d 254
Docket Number: Nos. 62722, 64230
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Sidney HARRIS, Appellant. Sidney HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 870
Pages: 254–254

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Sidney HARRIS, Appellant. Sidney HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Nos. 62722, 64230.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Feb. 15, 1994.
S. Paige Canfield, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his convictions for first degree robbery, second degree assault, and armed criminal action. He also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.
In his direct appeal, we find no error of law and affirm. We also believe no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion and dispose of it by summary order. Rule 30.25(b).
In the appeal of the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, we find the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j); Rule 84.-16(b)(2). We further determine an opinion would have no precedential value and affirm by summary order. Rule 84.16(b). We have provided the parties with a memorandum for their use only.