Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Warnell REID, Appellant; Warnell REID, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1995-05-09
Citations: 901 S.W.2d 259
Docket Number: Nos. 63225, 65991
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Warnell REID, Appellant. Warnell REID, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 901
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Warnell REID, Appellant. Warnell REID, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Nos. 63225, 65991.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
May 9, 1995.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 12, 1995.
Application to Transfer Denied July 25, 1995.
Craig A. Johnston, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Wamell Reid, appeals from his jury convictions for robbery in the first degree, § 569.020 R.S.Mo.1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, for which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender, § 557.036 and 558.016 R.S.Mo.Cum.Supp. 1993, to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years. Additionally, defendant filed a motion to reconsider our ruling sustaining the State's motion to strike defendant's appendix attached to his brief.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We deny defendant's motion, and affirm the judgment in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
Defendant also appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for ineffective assistance of trial counsel without an eviden-tiary hearing.
The judgment of the motion court denying defendant's Rule 29.15 motion without a hearing is not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).