Case Name: Jeffery LOTTIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2018-02-27
Citations: 548 S.W.3d 323
Docket Number: No. ED 104723
Parties: Jeffery LOTTIE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 548
Pages: 323–323

Head Matter:
Jeffery LOTTIE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 104723
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
FILED: February 27, 2018
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 17, 2018
Application for Transfer Denied July 3, 2018
Kevin B. Gau, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for Appellant.
Joshua d. Hawley, Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for Respondent.
Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Jeffery Lottie ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, without an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of three counts of second-degree assault, unlawful possession of a firearm, attempted first-degree robbery, five counts of armed criminal action, and one count of second-degree murder. Movant was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for each count of second-degree assault, seven years' imprisonment for one count of armed criminal action and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, 15 years' imprisonment for attempted first-degree robbery, 25 years' imprisonment for each of the four remaining counts of armed criminal action, and life imprisonment for second-degree murder, for a total sentence of life plus 25 years. This Court affirmed Movant's convictions and sentences in State v. Lottie, 416 S.W.3d 345 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). We affirm the motion court's judgment.
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 for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).