ORDER

Mr. Jerry D. Smith appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. Mr. Smith claims that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing because the record does not refute the claims that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and *842 intelligent based on (1) counsel’s ineffectiveness; (2) counsel’s promise of a five-year sentence; and (3) a prosecutorial threat to charge his wife with an offense unless he pleaded guilty.

For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).