Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Samuel CRUMP, Defendant-Appellant; Samuel CRUMP, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-10-29
Citations: 932 S.W.2d 876
Docket Number: Nos. 68239, 70296
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Samuel CRUMP, Defendant-Appellant. Samuel CRUMP, 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: 932
Pages: 876–877

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Samuel CRUMP, Defendant-Appellant. Samuel CRUMP, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
Nos. 68239, 70296.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Oct. 29, 1996.
Gary E. Brotherton, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Joiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from his conviction for one count of second-degree burglary, § 569.170, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender, § 558.016, to fifteen years' imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentence in an unrelated case. Defendant alleges the trial court erred when it did not grant a mistrial sua sponte during closing argument after a personal attack by the prosecutor on Defendant's attorney. Defendant also alleges error in the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without a hearing. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum outlining the reasons for this order affirming the judgments of the trial and motion courts. Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b).