Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James R. BLANKEN, Appellant; James R. BLANKEN, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1994-02-01
Citations: 869 S.W.2d 861
Docket Number: Nos. 62251, 63806
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James R. BLANKEN, Appellant. James R. BLANKEN, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 869
Pages: 861–861

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James R. BLANKEN, Appellant. James R. BLANKEN, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Nos. 62251, 63806.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Feb. 1, 1994.
Sylvester H. Winston, Springfield, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, James Blanken, appeals from his convictions, after a jury trial, for kidnapping and two counts of rape. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of seven years and fifteen years on one count of kidnapping and one count of rape and a consecutive term of seventeen years on the remaining rape count. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing.
We have reviewed defendant's direct appeal. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment of convictions are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
The judgment of the trial court denying defendant's Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).