State v. Lannert

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Lannert

905 S.W.2d 929, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1613, 1995 WL 559407

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 19, 1995

DocketNo. 63563

StatusPublished

This text of 905 S.W.2d 929 (State v. Lannert) 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. Lannert, 905 S.W.2d 929, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1613, 1995 WL 559407 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appealed her judgments of conviction by a jury of first degree murder, § 565.020, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986, as well as the denial of her Rule 29.15 Motion for post-conviction relief. See State v. Lannert, 889 S.W.2d 131 (Mo.App.E.D.1994). We affirmed in all respects except we remanded for a gender-Batson hearing. Id. at 135. The trial court denied her objection that the State impermissibly used its preemptory strikes in a gender-biased manner. Defendant claims this was error. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appealed her judgments of conviction by a jury of first degree murder, § 565.020, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986, as well as the denial of her Rule 29.15 Motion for post-conviction relief. See State v. Lannert, 889 S.W.2d 131 (Mo.App.E.D.1994). We affirmed in all respects except we remanded for a gender-Batson hearing. Id. at 135. The trial court denied her objection that the State impermissibly used its preemptory strikes in a gender-biased manner. Defendant claims this was error. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

905 S.W.2d 929, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1613, 1995 WL 559407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lannert-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack