Sills v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sills v. State

477 S.W.3d 183, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1241, 2015 WL 7741167

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 1, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102379

StatusPublished

This text of 477 S.W.3d 183 (Sills v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sills v. State, 477 S.W.3d 183, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1241, 2015 WL 7741167 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Sills (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. In his two points on appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his claims without an evidentiary hearing as his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately challenge the State’s peremptory strikes of five African American venire members under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Specifically, Movant contends trial counsel (1) failed to allege why the State’s race-neutral reasons for its strikes were pretextual, and (2) because he did not adequately object, the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.

The motion court’s denial of Movant’s Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion is affirmed. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Sills (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. In his two points on appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his claims without an evidentiary hearing as his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately challenge the State’s peremptory strikes of five African American venire members under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Specifically, Movant contends trial counsel (1) failed to allege why the State’s race-neutral reasons for its strikes were pretextual, and (2) because he did not adequately object, the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.

The motion court’s denial of Movant’s Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion is affirmed. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 S.W.3d 183, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1241, 2015 WL 7741167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sills-v-state-moctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack