Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Timothy ATKINS, Defendant/Appellant; Timothy ATKINS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1995-11-14
Citations: 914 S.W.2d 12
Docket Number: Nos. 65541, 67353
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Timothy ATKINS, Defendant/Appellant. Timothy ATKINS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANE, C.J., and SIMON, J., and WILLIAM E. TURNAGE, Senior Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 914
Pages: 12–13

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Timothy ATKINS, Defendant/Appellant. Timothy ATKINS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 65541, 67353.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Nov. 14, 1995.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 4, 1996.
Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 20, 1996.
Jeff Skoglund, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for movant/appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. General and Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. General, Jefferson City, for plaintiff/respondent.
Before CRANE, C.J., and SIMON, J., and WILLIAM E. TURNAGE, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Timothy Atkins appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree in violation of § 565.021 RSMo 1986 and armed criminal action in violation of § 571.015 RSMo 1986, on which he was sentenced as a prior offender to consecutive terms of life imprisonment. Defendant also appeals from a judgment denying on the merits, without an evidentiary hearing, 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 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).