Case Name: Arnell EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-06-20
Citations: 23 S.W.3d 847
Docket Number: No. ED 76112
Parties: Arnell EDWARDS, 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: 23
Pages: 847–847

Head Matter:
Arnell EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 76112.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
June 20, 2000.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 25, 2000.
Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 29, 2000.
Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Steven D. Hawke, 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 Arnell Edwards was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County of unlawful use of a weapon, Section 571.030.1(1), RSMo 1994, and possession of a controlled substance, Section 195.202, RSMo 1994. His convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court in State v. Edwards, 964 S.W.2d 557 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). He now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion after an evidentiary hearing.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and no error of law appears. The motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum opinion for their exclusive use detailing the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
. On June 12, 2000, one day before this case was submitted on the briefs, Movant filed a Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief Out of Time. Movant's motion is granted. We have read and considered Movant's reply brief in making our decision.