Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jerome EILAND, Defendant/Appellant; Jerome EILAND, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-01-13
Citations: 959 S.W.2d 923
Docket Number: Nos. 68839, 71366
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jerome EILAND, Defendant/Appellant. Jerome EILAND, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 959
Pages: 923–923

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jerome EILAND, Defendant/Appellant. Jerome EILAND, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Nos. 68839, 71366.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Jan. 13, 1998.
Nancy L. Vincent, Raymund J. Capelvo-tich, Asst. Public Defenders, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Blegen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of second degree murder, in violation of section 566.021 RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015 RSMo 1994, on which he was sentenced to two concurrent terms of twenty-five years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.
As to the direct appeal, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
As to the post-conviction appeal, the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. A written opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.