Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Fawaz M. HAMDAN, Defendant/Appellant; Fawaz M. HAMDAN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-07-22
Citations: 951 S.W.2d 649
Docket Number: Nos. 69077, 70829
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Fawaz M. HAMDAN, Defendant/Appellant. Fawaz M. HAMDAN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANE, P.J., and GERALD M. SMITH and PUDLOWSKI, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 951
Pages: 649–650

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Fawaz M. HAMDAN, Defendant/Appellant. Fawaz M. HAMDAN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 69077, 70829.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
July 22, 1997.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 22, 1997 .
Wittner, Poger, Rosenblum & Spewak, P.C., N. Scott Rosenblum, Ramona L. Marten, Clayton, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CRANE, P.J., and GERALD M. SMITH and PUDLOWSKI, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Fawaz Hamdan appeals his conviction after a jury trial of murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree and two counts of armed criminal action. The trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment on Count I, a consecutive life sentence on Count II and two consecutive sentences of 15 years each on Counts III and IV. Defendant also appeals from the judgment, denying on the merits without an evi-dentiary hearing, his claims in his Rule 29.15 motion.
The motion court's judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 80.25(b) and 84.16(b).