OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Keith Esters, Defendant/Appellant. Keith Esters, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

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, Respondent, v. Keith Esters, Defendant/Appellant. Keith Esters, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 68863 and 71196 Handdown Date: 11/25/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Daniel T. Tillman Counsel for Appellant: Raymond J. Capelovitch Counsel for Respondent: John M. Morris, III, and Gregory L. Barnes Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell, J., and James R. Dowd, J. Opinion: ORDER Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of illegal possession of a controlled substance, in violation of section 195.202 RSMo 1994, on which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to fifteen years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals from a judgment denying, after an evidentiary hearing, 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.

Related Opinions