Case Name: James L. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-05-03
Citations: 165 S.W.3d 502
Docket Number: No. ED 85006
Parties: James L. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 165
Pages: 502–503

Head Matter:
James L. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 85006.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
May 3, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 30, 2005.
James L. Wilson, Bonne Terre, pro se.
Deborah Daniels, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant James L. Wilson ("Wilson") appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his motion to reopen Rule 29.15 proceedings due to abandonment and conflict of interest of appointed counsel. Wilson was convicted by a jury of three counts of first degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 1986, three counts of kidnapping, Section 565.110, RSMo 1986, and six counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 1986. Wilson was sentenced to a total of three consecutive life sentences plus one hundred fifty years.
On appeal, Wilson argues the motion court erred in not addressing the issues raised in his motion to reopen the case under Rule 29.15; and in denying his motion to reopen the case because the record reflects that counsel abandoned one of his claims in the amended motion, which was a violation of his due process rights.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).