Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Scott BARMORE, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-10-15
Citations: 87 S.W.3d 888
Docket Number: No. ED 80201
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Scott BARMORE, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 87
Pages: 888–889

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Scott BARMORE, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 80201.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Oct. 15, 2002.
Lawrence L. Pratt, Assistant Public Defenders Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Joel A. Block, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Scott Barmore (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty as a prior and persistent offender of first-degree robbery. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court's ruling on Appellant's motion to suppress was supported by substantial evidence. State v. Davis, 32 S.W.3d 603, 610 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).