Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Frederick H. BROWN, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-04-13
Citations: 131 S.W.3d 856
Docket Number: No. ED 83138
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Frederick H. BROWN, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, C.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 131
Pages: 856–857

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Frederick H. BROWN, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 83138.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
April 13, 2004.
Frederick H. Brown, Jefferson City, MO, for Appellant.
Andrea K. Spillars, Jefferson City, Mo, for Respondent.
Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, C.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
We previously affirmed Frederick H. Brown's first degree assault and armed criminal action convictions on direct appeal and affirmed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. State v. Brown, 871 S.W.2d 136 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). He now appeals the judgment denying his "Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order" in which he alleged the trial court erred in finding him to be a persistent offender.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court did not err. 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).