State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Constandinos Kastanas, Defendant/Appellant. Constandinos Kastanas, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

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. Constandinos Kastanas, Defendant/Appellant. Constandinos Kastanas, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent. Case Number: Nos. 68178/70397/70547 Handdown Date: 06/27/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Thomas F. McGuire Counsel for Appellant: Counsel for Respondent: Opinion Summary: Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Before Dowd, Jr., P.J., Reinhard, J. and Gaertner, J. Opinion:

O R D E R Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of the class C felony of possession of a controlled substance, Section 195.202, RSMo Supp. 1993, and the class A misdemeanor of possession of drug paraphernalia, Section 195.233, RSMo Supp. 1993. The trial court found that defendant had previously been convicted of three felonies: (1) robbery in the second degree; (2) robbery in the second degree; and (3) burglary in the first degree. The court found defendant to be a prior and persistent and class X offender and sentenced him to a ten year prison term for possession of the controlled substance and a concurrent one year prison term for the possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced defendant as a class X offender "subject to the minimum prison term pursuant to Section 558.019, RSMo.[Supp. 1993]." Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. 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: This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.