Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Maurice GREENWOOD, Defendant/Appellant; Maurice GREENWOOD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-04-01
Citations: 943 S.W.2d 304
Docket Number: Nos. 68998, 70691
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Maurice GREENWOOD, Defendant/Appellant. Maurice GREENWOOD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 943
Pages: 304–304

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Maurice GREENWOOD, Defendant/Appellant. Maurice GREENWOOD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 68998, 70691.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
April 1, 1997.
Deborah B. Wafer, District Defender, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Lisa A. Fischer, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for plaintiff/respondent.
Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of stealing, § 570.030, RSMo 1994. The court found defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to a prison term of fifteen years. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. 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).