Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Dustin W. DYE, Defendant/Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2018-03-06
Citations: 540 S.W.3d 891
Docket Number: No. ED 105053
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent,
v.
Dustin W. DYE, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 540
Pages: 891–891

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent,
v.
Dustin W. DYE, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 105053
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
Filed: March 6, 2018
Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.
Christian Lehmberg, Woodrail Centre, 100 W. Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203, For Defendant/Appellant.
Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dustin W. Dye (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of the class B felony of abuse of a child, Section 568.060 RSMo Supp. 2013, and sentencing him to fifteen years' imprisonment. Appellant requests plain error review for his unpreserved claim of instructional error. For instructional error to rise to the level of plain error, Appellant must demonstrate the trial court so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury as to cause manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. State v. Baker, 103 S.W.3d 711, 723 (Mo. banc 2003). Appellant has failed to do so. This is also not a multiple incidents case as presented in State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2011). 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 decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).