State v. Smith

99 S.W.3d 1, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1832, 2002 WL 2004660
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Smith. Read the opinion of the Court — 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1680
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 3, 2002·No. No. ED 80223·Published

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).1 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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Smith, 99 S.W.3d 1, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1832, 2002 WL 2004660 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

99 S.W.3d 1 (State v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Taylor
929 S.W.2d 209 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1996)