Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Arlandus KEYES, Defendant/Appellant; Arlandus KEYES, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-05-19
Citations: 972 S.W.2d 526
Docket Number: Nos. 68195, 72575
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Arlandus KEYES, Defendant/Appellant. Arlandus KEYES, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANE, P.J., and' RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 972
Pages: 526–527

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Arlandus KEYES, Defendant/Appellant. Arlandus KEYES, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Nos. 68195, 72575.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
May 19, 1998.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 8, 1998.
Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 25, 1998.
Deborah B. Wafer, Dist. Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Joiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CRANE, P.J., and' RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the first degree, in violation of section 565.020 RSMo 1994; assault in the first degree, in violation of section 565.050 RSMo 1994; two counts of robbery in the first degree, in violation of section 569.020 RSMo 1994; and four counts of armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015 RSMo 1994. Defendant was sentenced to a total of the following consecutive terms: life imprisonment without the possibility of probation or parole; life imprisonment; fifteen years imprisonment; and life imprisonment. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). Defendant has not briefed any issues related to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, and it is therefore deemed abandoned and the judgment is affirmed.