Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Claude Turner, Defendant/Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiffrespondent-v-claude-turner-defendantappellant-16974
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=16974
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Plaintiff%2FRespondent%2C+v.+Claude+Turner%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Claude Turner, Defendant/Appellant.
Case Number:  Nos. 67035/71010
Handdown Date:  05/13/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Anna C. Forder
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Before Dowd, Jr., P.J., Reinhard, J. and Russell, J.
Opinion:

O R D E R
Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of one count of sale of a controlled substance, 
section 195.211, RSMo Supp. 1993, and one count of unlawful use of a weapon, section 571.030, RSMo Supp. 
1993.  The court found defendant to be a prior, persistent, and Class X offender and sentenced him to two 
concurrent prison terms of ten years.  Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-
conviction relief.  We affirm.
We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion 
court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous.  An opinion would have no precedential value 
nor serve any jurisprudential purpose.  The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their 
information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 

84.16(b).
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.