Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Larry BOSTIC, Defendant/Appellant; Larry BOSTIC, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-12-10
Citations: 936 S.W.2d 180
Docket Number: Nos. 67319, 70502
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Larry BOSTIC, Defendant/Appellant. Larry BOSTIC, 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: 936
Pages: 180–181

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Larry BOSTIC, Defendant/Appellant. Larry BOSTIC, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 67319, 70502.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Dec. 10, 1996.
Gwenda R. Robinson, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, for Defendant/Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Kurt U. Schaefer, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for PlaintiffiRespon-dent.
Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals after he was convicted by the trial court of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced defendant to a prison term of ten years. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Defendant does not address any points in his appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. Therefore, that appeal is considered abandoned. 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).