Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Richard L. KUTRIP, Defendant/Appellant; Richard KUTRIP, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-04-21
Citations: 964 S.W.2d 888
Docket Number: Nos. 68320, 71318
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Richard L. KUTRIP, Defendant/Appellant. Richard KUTRIP, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 964
Pages: 888–889

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Richard L. KUTRIP, Defendant/Appellant. Richard KUTRIP, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 68320, 71318.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
April 21, 1998.
Raymond J. Capeloviteh, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted defendant of two felony counts of sale of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of ten and twenty-four years imprisonment. Defendant also sought post-conviction relief in the motion court pursuant to Rule 29.15. Following a hearing, the motion court denied the motion.
On this consolidated appeal, defendant raises two points challenging the trial court's and motion court's decisions. We have studied the briefs, legal file, and transcript. No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion.
The judgments and sentences are affirmed pursuant to Rules 30.25 and 84.16(b).