Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles YARBROUGH, Appellant; Charles YARBROUGH, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-11-26
Citations: 934 S.W.2d 638
Docket Number: Nos. 66973, 70076
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles YARBROUGH, Appellant. Charles YARBROUGH, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before AHRENS, C.J., and CRANDALL, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior ' Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 934
Pages: 638–639

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles YARBROUGH, Appellant. Charles YARBROUGH, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Nos. 66973, 70076.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Nov. 26, 1996.
A. Renae Adamson, Rose M. Wibbenmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, David G. Brown, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.
Before AHRENS, C.J., and CRANDALL, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior ' Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Charles Yarbrough, appeals from the judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, of first degree tampering, for which he was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. He also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing.
As to defendant's direct appeal, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion: The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
The judgment of the trial court denying defendant's Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).