Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Timothy STEGALL, Defendant-Appellant; Timothy R. STEGALL, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1990-07-17
Citations: 792 S.W.2d 692
Docket Number: Nos. 55502, 57219
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Timothy STEGALL, Defendant-Appellant. Timothy R. STEGALL, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 792
Pages: 692–693

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Timothy STEGALL, Defendant-Appellant. Timothy R. STEGALL, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
Nos. 55502, 57219.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
July 17, 1990.
Susan L. Hogan, Columbia, for defendant-appellant.
William Webster, Atty. Gen., M. Melissa Manda, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant filed notice of direct appeal, but has raised no points in that appeal; there fore, he has abandoned it. He also appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).