Case Name: David E. COURTNEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-04-30
Citations: 73 S.W.3d 880
Docket Number: No. ED 80510
Parties: David E. COURTNEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 73
Pages: 880–881

Head Matter:
David E. COURTNEY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
No. ED 80510.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
April 30, 2002.
Rosalynn Koch, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stephanie Morrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant David E. Courtney (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 without a hearing. Movant asserts his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because it was induced by a promise that he would receive drug treatment. 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 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).