Johnson v. State

75 S.W.3d 296, 2002 WL 861280
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Johnson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2010
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 7, 2002·No. No. ED 80234·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Andre Johnson, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. This court previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for first degree robbery and armed criminal action. State v. Johnson, 7 S.W.3d 411 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). In this appeal, Movant claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to complete a Batson motion in a timely manner. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memoran[297]*297dum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Johnson v. State, 75 S.W.3d 296, 2002 WL 861280 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

75 S.W.3d 296 (Johnson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court, 1986)
State v. Johnson
7 S.W.3d 411 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1999)