State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Anthony George Williams, Appellant. Anthony George Williams, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, 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, Respondent, v. Anthony George Williams, Appellant. Anthony George Williams, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 69570 and 71138 Handdown Date: 11/25/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County, Hon. William L. Syler Counsel for Appellant: Judith C. LaRose Counsel for Respondent: Daniel G. Cierpiot Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur. Opinion: O R D E R Anthony George Williams appeals the judgment and sentences entered upon his convictions by a jury of one count of first degree burglary, section 569.160 RSMo 1994, and one count of stealing, section 570.030 RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender under sections 558.016.2 and 557.036.4 RSMo 1994 to ten years for the burglary offense and time served for the stealing offense, with the sentences to run concurrently. On his direct appeal Williams contends the trial court plainly erred in allowing the prosecutor to elicit evidence and to comment during opening statement and closing argument on Williams' failure to make an exculpatory statement about his alibi to the arresting officer; plainly erred in failing sua sponte to declare a mistrial when during closing argument the prosecutor made derogatory statements regarding Williams' motive; and erred in determining there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on direct appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. The trial court's judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b). In this consolidated matter, Williams also appeals from the denial of his 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. In this appeal, Williams contends the motion court erred in finding Williams' trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance due to his failure timely and properly to object to (a) the prosecutor's references to Williams' failure to mention his alibi to the arresting officer, (b) the identification testimony, and (c) the prosecutor's derogatory statements regarding motive during closing argument. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. The motion court's judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.