Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Anthony HARRINGTON, Appellant; Anthony HARRINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1993-03-16
Citations: 848 S.W.2d 643
Docket Number: Nos. 60143, 61923
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Anthony HARRINGTON, Appellant. Anthony HARRINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 848
Pages: 643–643

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Anthony HARRINGTON, Appellant. Anthony HARRINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Nos. 60143, 61923.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
March 16, 1993.
Marilynn Rydlund, Emily N. Blood, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joan F. Gummels, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted by jury of possession of cocaine, a Class C felony, and distribution of cocaine near a school, a Class A felony. He was sentenced as a prior offender. He appeals the denial, after a hearing, of his 29.15 motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel and appeals his conviction under § 195.214, RSMo (Supp.1992). We affirm per Rule 84.16(b) and Rule 30.25(b). No error of law appears; the motion court's findings are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only.