Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Van PERRY, Defendant/Appellant; Van PERRY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-04-16
Citations: 920 S.W.2d 147
Docket Number: No. 66068
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Van PERRY, Defendant/Appellant. Van PERRY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 920
Pages: 147–147

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Van PERRY, Defendant/Appellant. Van PERRY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. 66068.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
April 16, 1996.
Gary E. Brotherton, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Mary Moulton Bryan, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals after his conviction by a jury for six counts of first degree robbery, § 669.020, RSMo 1986. He also appeals from the motion court's judgment denying Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief. (An evi-dentiary hearing was awarded, but defendant submitted an affidavit in lieu of testifying and no other witnesses were called.) We affirm.
We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal are without merit. Movant's sole point addressing the denial of Rule 29.15 relief concerns the effectiveness of his post-conviction counsel. Such claims are not cognizable on appeal. State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 928-29 (Mo. banc 1992). An opinion would have no prece-dential 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).