Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Gaudencio MEDINA-LAUREANO, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-04-12
Citations: 485 S.W.3d 826
Docket Number: No. ED 102914
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Gaudencio MEDINA-LAUREANO, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 485
Pages: 826–827

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Gaudencio MEDINA-LAUREANO, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 102914
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
Filed: April 12, 2016
Dora A. Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for Plaintiff/Respondent.
Amy M. Bartholow, 1000 W. Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203, for Defendant/Appellant.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Gaudencio Medina-Laureano appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of second-degree assault and sentencing him to a year in prison. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not clearly abuse its broad discretion in excluding certain testimony. State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 55 (Mo.banc 1998). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).
i