Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles WRIGHT, Appellant; Charles WRIGHT, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-03-26
Citations: 918 S.W.2d 398
Docket Number: Nos. 65227, 68094
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles WRIGHT, Appellant. Charles WRIGHT, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL and KAROHL, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 918
Pages: 398–399

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles WRIGHT, Appellant. Charles WRIGHT, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Nos. 65227, 68094.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
March 26, 1996.
Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Breck K. Burgess, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL and KAROHL, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from the judgments of conviction, after a jury trial, for burglary in the second degree, § 569.170 RSMol986, and felony stealing, § 570.030 RSMol986. He was sentenced by the court as a class X offender to consecutive sentences of twelve years on each charge. Defendant also appeals denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief. We affirm.
We have reviewed the record consisting of the legal file and transcripts for both appeals and find the claims of error are without merit; we find no prejudicial error and the findings and judgment of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. We affirm the judgments pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).