Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Lamont GORDON, Defendant/Appellant; Lamont GORDON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1993-12-07
Citations: 865 S.W.2d 896
Docket Number: Nos. 61806, 63489
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Lamont GORDON, Defendant/Appellant. Lamont GORDON, 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: 865
Pages: 896–897

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Lamont GORDON, Defendant/Appellant. Lamont GORDON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 61806, 63489.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Dec. 7, 1993.
Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Appellate Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his conviction, by a jury, of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo Supp.1992. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent, class X, minimum term offender and a prior and persistent drug offender. He also appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. 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. A written opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 30.25(b); Rule 84.16(b).