Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mary H. STEVENS, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-09-21
Citations: 149 S.W.3d 463
Docket Number: No. ED 83495
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mary H. STEVENS, Appellant.
Judges: Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 149
Pages: 463–464

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mary H. STEVENS, Appellant.
No. ED 83495.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Sept. 21, 2004.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 4, 2004.
Application for Transfer Denied Dec. 21, 2004.
Arthur G. Muegler, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stephanie Morrell, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Mary H. Stevens (Defendant) appeals the denial of her Rule 29.07 motion to withdraw guilty plea. The convictions sought to be vacated were for the Class C felony of possession of a controlled substance, Section 195.202, RSMo 2000, and the Class B felony of robbery in the second degree, Section 569.030, for which she received concurrent terms of seven years imprisonment for possession of a controlled substance and eight years imprisonment for robbery. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion to withdraw her guilty plea because (1) the trial court failed to comply substantially with Rule 24.02, (2) Defendant's guilty plea was involuntary, and (3) there was no factual basis for Defendant's guilty plea or sufficient evidence to establish Defendant understood the nature of the crimes charged. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000.