Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Marcellus WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-02-06
Citations: 41 S.W.3d 555
Docket Number: No. ED 77471
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Marcellus WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., PAUL J. SIMON and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 41
Pages: 555–556

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Marcellus WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. ED 77471.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Feb. 6, 2001.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 19, 2001.
Application to Transfer Denied April 24, 2001.
Gwenda R. Robmson, Asst. Pubhc Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John Munson Morris, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Susan L. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., PAUL J. SIMON and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Mareellus Williams ("Defendant") appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction for first-degree robbery, Section 569.020 RSMo. (1994); armed criminal action, Section 571.015; and unlawful use of a weapon, Section 571.030.1 RSMo. Supp. (1999). Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty years for the first-degree robbery, twenty years for armed criminal action, and seven years for unlawful use of a weapon. Defendant alleges that: (1) the trial court plainly erred in finding him a persistent felony offender under Section 558.016; and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that: (1) Defendant suffered no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice in being sentenced as a persistent offender; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to show that Defendant was carrying a concealed weapon. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).
. All statutory references are to RSMo. (1994) unless otherwise noted.