Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Juan R. SMITH, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-09-03
Citations: 99 S.W.3d 1
Docket Number: No. ED 80223
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Juan R. SMITH, Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 99
Pages: 1–1

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Juan R. SMITH, Appellant.
No. ED 80223.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Sept. 3, 2002.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 20, 2003.
David Hemingway, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Audara Charlton, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Juan R. Smith (Appellant) appeals the trial court's ruling denying his pre-sen-tence Motion to Withdraw a Guilty Plea (Motion) pursuant to Rule 29.07(d). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. State v. Taylor, 929 S.W.2d 209, 215 (Mo. banc 1996). 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 judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2002, unless otherwise indicated.