*669 ORDER

David Higgins appeals the judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict convicting him of stealing over $500.00. We find that the trial court did not plainly err in denying Higgins’ motion for a mistrial, in questioning him about his prior felony convictions, nor in finding him to be a persistent offender. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).