Case Name: STATE of Missouri Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Hubert MORRIS, Defendant/Appellant; Hubert MORRIS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1995-05-23
Citations: 898 S.W.2d 157
Docket Number: Nos. 64085, 66334
Parties: STATE of Missouri Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Hubert MORRIS, Defendant/Appellant. Hubert MORRIS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 898
Pages: 157–158

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Hubert MORRIS, Defendant/Appellant. Hubert MORRIS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Nos. 64085, 66334.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
May 23, 1995.
Raymund J. Capelovitch, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury of stealing property with a value exceeding $150. § 570.030, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent offender to ten years' imprisonment. He also appeals the denial after an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
Defendant addresses no point on appeal to the denial of his post-conviction motion and that appeal is considered abandoned. See State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo. App.1991). We have reviewed the record and find his claims of error on direct appeal to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).