Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Brenda FORSHEE, Defendant/Appellant; Brenda FORSHEE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-11-12
Citations: 934 S.W.2d 21
Docket Number: Nos. 68483, 70023
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Brenda FORSHEE, Defendant/Appellant. Brenda FORSHEE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 934
Pages: 21–22

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Brenda FORSHEE, Defendant/Appellant. Brenda FORSHEE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 68483, 70023.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Nov. 12, 1996.
Ellen H. Flottman, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Jill C. LaHue, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals after she was convicted by a jury of one count of felony stealing, § 570.030, RSMo 1986. The court found defendant to be a prior offender and sentenced her to a prison term of seven years. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
We have reviewed the record and find the claims of eiTor 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).