Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Virgil NULL, Defendant/Appellant; Virgil NULL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1995-10-10
Citations: 907 S.W.2d 804
Docket Number: Nos. 64897, 66838
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Virgil NULL, Defendant/Appellant. Virgil NULL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL, J., and WHITE, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 907
Pages: 804–804

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Virgil NULL, Defendant/Appellant. Virgil NULL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 64897, 66838.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Oct. 10, 1995.
Raymond J. Capelovitch, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL, J., and WHITE, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury for unlawful use of a weapon, § 571.030.1(3), RSMo 1986. He also appeals the motion court's judgment denying his claim for Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. 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).