Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kevin BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-02-29
Citations: 16 S.W.3d 678
Docket Number: Nos. ED 69440, ED 75268
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kevin BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 16
Pages: 678–678

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kevin BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. ED 69440, ED 75268.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Feb. 29, 2000.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 11, 2000.
Application for Transfer Denied May 30, 2000.
Amy M. Bartholow, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Anne E. Hawley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Brown, Defendant, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of Section 565.081.1 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to life in prison; second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of Section 565.082 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to life in prison; armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to 30 years in prison; first-degree tampering in violation of Section 569.080 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to 20 years in prison; and first-degree property damage in violation of Section 569.100 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to 10 years in prison; all sentences are to run consecutively. Defendant also appeals from a judgment denying on the merits, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.
As to the direct appeal, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
As to the post-conviction appeal, the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. A written opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).
However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.