Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dennis WILLIAMS, Appellant; Dennis WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-03-10
Citations: 963 S.W.2d 469
Docket Number: Nos. 68999, 71921
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dennis WILLIAMS, Appellant. Dennis WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 963
Pages: 469–470

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dennis WILLIAMS, Appellant. Dennis WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Nos. 68999, 71921.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
March 10, 1998.
Irene Earns, Judith C. LaRose, Asst. Public Defenders, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Catherine Chatman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Dennis Williams, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree robbery, in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo 1994, on which he was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals from a judgment denying, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.
As to the direct appeal, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
As to the post-conviction appeal, the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. A written opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.