ORDER

David S. Roper appeals the trial court’s judgment sentencing him to serve a total of twenty-five years after Roper was convicted of three counts of delivering a controlled substance. On appeal, Roper claims that the trial court erred in overrul *902 ing his request for counsel at the resen-tencing hearing. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).