Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Kenneth John GEBHARDT, Defendant/Appellant. Kenneth J. GEBHARDT, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-12-02
Citations: 956 S.W.2d 446
Docket Number: Nos. 69239, 71664
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Kenneth John GEBHARDT, Defendant/Appellant. Kenneth J. GEBHARDT, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 956
Pages: 446–446

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Kenneth John GEBHARDT, Defendant/Appellant. Kenneth J. GEBHARDT, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 69239, 71664.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Dec. 2, 1997.
Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted defendant of felony-murder and child abuse, in violation of sections 565.021.1(2) and 568.060, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of life and seven years.
Defendant raises four points on appeal. He contends the trial court (1) plainly erred when it permitted the State to alternatively charge felony murder and conventional second degree murder; (2) erred in sentencing defendant for both child abuse and felony murder; (3) erred in overruling defendant's objections to photos of the victim; and (4) erred in overruling his objections to testimony about "rings" around the victim's neck.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
Defendant also appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. However, his brief does not contain any points related to that ruling. Thus, defendant abandoned that appeal and the motion court's judgment is affirmed.