State v. McDaniels

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. McDaniels

220 S.W.3d 310, 2006 WL 2864734

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 18, 2007

DocketED 86980

StatusPublished

This text of 220 S.W.3d 310 (State v. McDaniels) 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. McDaniels, 220 S.W.3d 310, 2006 WL 2864734 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerome McDaniels (“McDaniels”) appeals the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of attempted first degree robbery and armed criminal action. McDaniels alleges the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the peremptory striking of two African American women and in overruling McDaniel’s motion to suppress and his objection to out of court identifications.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Jerome McDaniels (“McDaniels”) appeals the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of attempted first degree robbery and armed criminal action. McDaniels alleges the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the peremptory striking of two African American women and in overruling McDaniel’s motion to suppress and his objection to out of court identifications.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 S.W.3d 310, 2006 WL 2864734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcdaniels-moctapp-2007.