Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Antoinette COLLINS, Plaintiff/Respondent; Antoinette COLLINS, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1993-02-02
Citations: 846 S.W.2d 251
Docket Number: Nos. 60716, 61875
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Antoinette COLLINS, Plaintiff/Respondent. Antoinette COLLINS, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 846
Pages: 251–251

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Antoinette COLLINS, Plaintiff/Respondent. Antoinette COLLINS, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 60716, 61875.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Feb. 2, 1993.
Ellen H. Elottman, Columbia, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Michael J. Runzi, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of stealing property with a value of at least $150, § 570.030, RSMo 1986. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The evidence in support of the jury's verdict is not insufficient and no error of law appears. 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).