Case Name: Harold NEMECEK, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-02-16
Citations: 986 S.W.2d 510
Docket Number: No. 74397
Parties: Harold NEMECEK, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before JAMES A. PUDLOWSKI, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL Jr. J., and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 986
Pages: 510–510

Head Matter:
Harold NEMECEK, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 74397.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Feb. 16, 1999.
Nancy L. Vincent, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Gregory L. Barnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before JAMES A. PUDLOWSKI, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL Jr. J., and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Harold Nemecek (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion. Movant's convictions for pharmacy robbery in the first degree, first degree robbery and armed criminal action were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Nemecek, 946 S.W.2d 768 (Mo.App. E.D.1997).
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's decision 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).