Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Anthony CLEVELAND, Appellant; Anthony CLEVELAND, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-05-26
Citations: 972 S.W.2d 567
Docket Number: Nos. 69653, 72927
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Anthony CLEVELAND, Appellant. Anthony CLEVELAND, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before CRAHAN, C.J., RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 972
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Anthony CLEVELAND, Appellant. Anthony CLEVELAND, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Nos. 69653, 72927.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
May 26, 1998.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 20, 1998.
Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 25, 1998.
John M. Sehilmoeller, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Karen L. Kramer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CRAHAN, C.J., RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Cleveland (Defendant) appeals from the judgment, following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of City of St. Louis, Missouri, convicting him of murder in the first degree, Section 565.020, RSMo 1994. The Honorable Daniel T. Tillman presided. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of probation or parole. Defendant also appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for posteonvietion relief, which was denied without an evidentia-ry hearing. The only three issues argued on appeal pertain to the direct appeal. The post conviction relief appeal has been abandoned and is denied.
As to the direct appeal, we have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law.
The judgments are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).