State v. Ivy

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ivy

342 S.W.3d 370, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 781, 2011 WL 2237570

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 2011

DocketED 94971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 342 S.W.3d 370 (State v. Ivy) 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. Ivy, 342 S.W.3d 370, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 781, 2011 WL 2237570 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lenn Ivy (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found him guilty of one count of murder in the first degree, Section 565.020 RSMo (2000), and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant as a persistent felony offender to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment on the murder count and fifty years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action count. Defendant raises one allegation of error, claiming the trial court erred in overruling his Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) challenge.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lenn Ivy (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found him guilty of one count of murder in the first degree, Section 565.020 RSMo (2000), and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant as a persistent felony offender to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment on the murder count and fifty years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action count. Defendant raises one allegation of error, claiming the trial court erred in overruling his Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) challenge.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 S.W.3d 370, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 781, 2011 WL 2237570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ivy-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack