Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Ventress L. SMITH, Defendant/Appellant; Ventress L. SMITH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1993-09-14
Citations: 862 S.W.2d 390
Docket Number: Nos. 60247, 62765
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Ventress L. SMITH, Defendant/Appellant. Ventress L. SMITH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 862
Pages: 390–391

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Ventress L. SMITH, Defendant/Appellant. Ventress L. SMITH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 60247, 62765.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Sept. 14, 1993.
John Klosterman, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen,, Jennifer A. Glaney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was charged by information and convicted by a jury of first degree robbery and armed criminal action. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent offender to concurrent twenty-five year pris on terms. His Rule 29.15 motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing. He appeals the conviction and the denial of his post-conviction motion. 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).