Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Keith Esters, Defendant/Appellant.  Keith Esters, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-keith-esters-defendantappellant-keith-este-12404
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12404
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent%2C+v.+Keith+Esters%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant.++Keith+Esters%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=30&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 30; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## 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.