State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jerome Eiland, Defendant/Appellant. Jerome Eiland, Defendant/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. Jerome Eiland, Defendant/Appellant. Jerome Eiland, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 68839 and 71366 Handdown Date: 01/13/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Daniel T. Tillman Counsel for Appellant: Nancy L. Vincent and Raymund J. Capelovitch Counsel for Respondent: John M. Morris, III, and Christine M. Blegen Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell and James R. Dowd, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of second degree murder, in violation of section 565.021 RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015 RSMo 1994, on which he was sentenced to two concurrent terms of twenty-five years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. As to the direct appeal, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). As to the post-conviction appeal, the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. A written opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the

reasons for this order. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.