Case Name: Daniel W. LOEHR, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-02-22
Citations: 16 S.W.3d 661
Docket Number: No. 75673
Parties: Daniel W. LOEHR, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 16
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
Daniel W. LOEHR, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 75673.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Feb. 22, 2000.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 27, 2000.
Application for Transfer Denied May 30, 2000.
Dave Hemingway, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Barbara K. Chesser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant Daniel W. Loehr ("Movant") appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant asserts the trial court erred in failing to render findings on his challenge to the state's breach of the jury-waiver agreement. Movant also asserts the trial court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing on the state's breach of the jury-waiver agreement. Finally, movant contends the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing on post-conviction counsel abandonment.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 80.25(b).