Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Eddie Lee DOUGLAS, Defendant/Appellant; Eddie Lee DOUGLAS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-06-10
Citations: 946 S.W.2d 769
Docket Number: Nos. 68122, 70366
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Eddie Lee DOUGLAS, Defendant/Appellant. Eddie Lee DOUGLAS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before DOWD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 946
Pages: 769–770

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Eddie Lee DOUGLAS, Defendant/Appellant. Eddie Lee DOUGLAS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 68122, 70366.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
June 10, 1997.
David L. Simpson, Columbia, Robert Steele, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Lisa A. Fischer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiffrespondent.
Before DOWD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of one count of receiving stolen property, § 570.080, RSMo 1986, and one count of altering or removing item numbers, § 570.085, RSMo 1986. The court found Defendant to be a prior offender and sentenced him to a seven-year prison term for receiving stolen property and a concurrent five-year term for altering or removing item numbers. Both sentences were ordered to run consecu tively to Defendant's prior unrelated sentence. Defendant also appeals the 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).