State v. Allen

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Allen

505 S.W.3d 862, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1296, 2016 WL 7388582

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103651

StatusPublished

This text of 505 S.W.3d 862 (State v. Allen) 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

State v. Allen, 505 S.W.3d 862, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1296, 2016 WL 7388582 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Allen (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of second-degree trafficking, contending the trial court erred in overruling his Batson1 challenge to two of the State’s peremptory strikes. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court overruling Appellant’s Batson challenges was not clearly erroneous. State v. Rashad, 484 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. [863]*863We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Allen (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of second-degree trafficking, contending the trial court erred in overruling his Batson1 challenge to two of the State’s peremptory strikes. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court overruling Appellant’s Batson challenges was not clearly erroneous. State v. Rashad, 484 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. [863]*863We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 S.W.3d 862, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1296, 2016 WL 7388582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-allen-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack