Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Wardell BEAN, Defendant/Appellant; Wardell BEAN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-07-23
Citations: 925 S.W.2d 511
Docket Number: Nos. 65815, 68853
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Wardell BEAN, Defendant/Appellant. Wardell BEAN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 925
Pages: 511–511

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Wardell BEAN, Defendant/Appellant. Wardell BEAN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 65815, 68853.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
July 23, 1996.
Gary E. Brotherton, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John W. Simon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of second degree burglary, § 569.170, RSMo 1986, and stealing $150 or more, § 570.030, RSMo 1986. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).