Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Paul HUBBARD, Defendant/Appellant; Paul HUBBARD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-02-20
Citations: 918 S.W.2d 265
Docket Number: Nos. 65530, 67893
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Paul HUBBARD, Defendant/Appellant. Paul HUBBARD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 918
Pages: 265–266

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Paul HUBBARD, Defendant/Appellant. Paul HUBBARD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 65530, 67893.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Feb. 20, 1996.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 2, 1996.
Deborah B. Wafer, District Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Christine M. Blegen, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him as a class X offender to a twenty-five year prison term. Defendant also appeals the denial, without 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 judg ment 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).