State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Keith Esters, Defendant/Appellant. Keith Esters, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Keith Esters, Defendant/·Keith Esters, Defendant/Appellant. Keith Esters, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri
- Respondent
- State of Missouri
Disposition
Affirmed
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
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.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Statutes
- RSMo § 195.202cited
section 195.202 RSMo
Rules
- Rule 29.15cited
Rule 29.15
- Rule 30.25cited
Rule 30.25
- Rule 84.16cited
Rule 84.16
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Theodis Guyton, Defendant/Appellant. Theodis Guyton, Movant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1997)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Julian McClain, Defendant/Appellant. Julian McClain, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.(1997)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Lisa Zych, Movant v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2002)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED79487
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Ralph Harper, Defendant/Appellant and Ralph Harper, Movant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1998)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Marques Morris, Defendant. Maarques Morris, Movant/Defendant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1998)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. George Ferina, Appellant.(1997)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District