Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Keith JOHNSON-BEY, Defendant/Appellant; Keith JOHNSON-BEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1994-03-08
Citations: 871 S.W.2d 143
Docket Number: Nos. 61937, 63870
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Keith JOHNSON-BEY, Defendant/Appellant. Keith JOHNSON-BEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 871
Pages: 143–144

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Keith JOHNSON-BEY, Defendant/Appellant. Keith JOHNSON-BEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 61937, 63870.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
March 8, 1994.
Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendanVappellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff/respondent.
Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his conviction, by a jury, of delivery of a controlled substance. § 195.211, RSMo Supp.1993. He was sentenced as a persistent offender to fourteen years imprisonment. He also appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. 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; no error of law appears. An extended 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).