Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bryan CHISSEM, Defendant-Appellant; Bryan CHISSEM, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-05-21
Citations: 922 S.W.2d 431
Docket Number: Nos. 66976, 69014
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bryan CHISSEM, Defendant-Appellant. Bryan CHISSEM, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
Judges: Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 922
Pages: 431–432

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bryan CHISSEM, Defendant-Appellant. Bryan CHISSEM, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
Nos. 66976, 69014.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
May 21, 1996.
Gary E. Brotherton, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kurt U. Schaefer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals the judgment entered upon the jury's conviction of first degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced Defendant as a prior offender to eighteen years' imprisonment. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evidentia-ry hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).