State v. Perry
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Van PERRY, Defendant/Appellant Van PERRY, Movant/Appellant v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ORDER PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals after his conviction by a jury for six counts of first degree robbery, § 669.020, RSMo 1986. He also appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief. (An evi-dentiary hearing was awarded, but defendant submitted an affidavit in lieu of testifying and no other witnesses were called.) We affirm.
We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal are without merit. Movant’s sole point addressing the denial of Rule 29.15 relief concerns the effectiveness of his post-conviction counsel. Such claims are not cognizable on appeal. State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 928-29 (Mo. banc 1992). An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.