State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Ervin Costello, Appellant; Ervin Costello, Movant-Appellant, vs. 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, vs. Ervin Costello, Appellant; Ervin Costello, Movant-Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: Nos. 67733 and 70474 Handdown Date: 05/20/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Honorable Anna C. Forder Counsel for Appellant: Counsel for Respondent: Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam. Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Opinion:

O R D E R Before Lawrence G. Crahan, P.J. and Stanley A. Grimm, J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.

Ervin Costello (Costello) appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury of burglary in the first degree, section 569.0160 RSMo 1986, and assault in the third degree, section 565.070 RSMo 1986. 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. 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. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Costello also appeals from the denial of part of his 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The motion court granted his motion in part when it issued an order finding that the written judgment must be corrected by the removal of any reference to sentencing him as a minimum term offender because the sentencing court never mentioned that he was being sentenced to a minimum term under sec. 558.019. The state does not appeal the removal of language which sentences Costello to a minimum sentence. Costello appeals from the denial of his 29.15 motion in regard to all other issues raised. However, Costello fails to raise any points on appeal relating to his Rule 29.15 motion. Where a movant appeals the denial of a 29.15 motion, but fails to raise any points related to the denial of that motion in the brief on appeal, the appeal is considered abandoned. State v. Link, 916 S.W.2d 385, 386n.1 (Mo. App. 1996); State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo. App. 1991). The motion court's judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.