Case Name: Wilbur GLASS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-04-04
Citations: 14 S.W.3d 725
Docket Number: No. ED 76730
Parties: Wilbur GLASS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before MARY RHODES RUSSELL, C.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, J., and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 14
Pages: 725–725

Head Matter:
Wilbur GLASS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 76730.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
April 4, 2000.
Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Catherine Chatman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before MARY RHODES RUSSELL, C.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, J., and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Wilbur Glass (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after a hearing. We have previously affirmed Movant's convictions for two counts of the class C felony of forgery in violation of section 570.090, RSMo 1994. State v. Glass, 964 S.W.2d 249 (Mo.App. E.D.1998).
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).