Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mario HAMPTON, Appellant; Mario HAMPTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1994-06-28
Citations: 880 S.W.2d 600
Docket Number: Nos. 60248, 64020
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mario HAMPTON, Appellant. Mario HAMPTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANE, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 880
Pages: 600–601

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mario HAMPTON, Appellant. Mario HAMPTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Nos. 60248, 64020.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
June 28, 1994.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 4, 1994.
Deborah B. Wafer, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CRANE, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted by jury trial of burglary in the second degree in violation of § 569.170, RSMo 1986. Defendant was sentenced as a Class X offender to twelve years imprisonment. Defendant's Rule 29.15 motion was denied after evidentiary hearing. Defendant appeals both the judgment entered upon his conviction and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, which appeals have been consolidated. We affirm.
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judg ment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).