Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Miguel SMITH, Defendant/Appellant; Miguel SMITH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-01-21
Citations: 937 S.W.2d 413
Docket Number: Nos. 67968, 69809
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Miguel SMITH, Defendant/Appellant. Miguel SMITH, 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: 937
Pages: 413–414

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Miguel SMITH, Defendant/Appellant. Miguel SMITH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 67968, 69809.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Jan. 21, 1997.
John M. Schilmoeller, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for Defendani/Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Kurt U. Schaefer, 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 his conviction by a jury of one count of first degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo 1986, one count of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1986, and two counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to concurrent prison terms of twenty-five years each for robbery and both counts of armed criminal action and fifteen years for assault. Defendant also appeals the partial denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following 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).