Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gordon ROCHOLL, Appellant; Gordon ROCHOLL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-07-08
Citations: 948 S.W.2d 262
Docket Number: No. 68966
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gordon ROCHOLL, Appellant. Gordon ROCHOLL, 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: 948
Pages: 262–262

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gordon ROCHOLL, Appellant. Gordon ROCHOLL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 68966.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
July 8, 1997.
Deborah B. Wafer, Dist. Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David R. Truman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Gordon Rocholl, appeals the judgment of conviction for three counts of attempted sodomy, RSMo sections 566.060 (Cum.Supp.1993) and 564.011 (1994), entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis after a bench trial. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
. As defendant's brief raises no issues regarding the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, his appeal from that judgment is deemed abandoned. State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App. E.D. 1991).