Case Name: Peter ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1995-05-23
Citations: 898 S.W.2d 154
Docket Number: No. 66332
Parties: Peter ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 898
Pages: 154–154

Head Matter:
Peter ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 66332.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
May 23, 1995.
Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from an order denying his Rule 24.035 motion seeking to vacate the judgment entered on his plea of guilty to the charge of distributing a controlled substance near a school, § 195.214 RSMo.Supp.1989.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Defendant's sole point on appeal concerns a claim which was not presented to the motion court. Such a claim cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Williams, 861 S.W.2d 670, 680 (Mo.App. 1993). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).