State v. Pickett

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Pickett

973 S.W.2d 851, 1998 Mo. LEXIS 50, 1998 WL 313563

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedJune 16, 1998

DocketNo. 80764

StatusPublished

This text of 973 S.W.2d 851 (State v. Pickett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Pickett, 973 S.W.2d 851, 1998 Mo. LEXIS 50, 1998 WL 313563 (Mo. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In State v. Pickett, 926 S.W.2d 872 (Mo.App.1996) (Pickett I), Tommy Pickett appealed his sentences as a class X offender, section 558.019, RSMo 1994,¹ of a life term for assault in the first degree, section 565.050, and a consecutive term of thirty years for burglary in the first degree, section 569.160. As to his first point, the court of appeals found that the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s Batson motion prior to allowing the defendant to make an offer of proof that the state’s proffered reasons for the strike were merely pretextual and, in fact, racially motivated. The cause was remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue and entry of an appropriate order.

Following a hearing after remand, the trial court found that no Batson violation occurred. Finding that the trial court’s decision in this regard is not clearly erroneous and believing that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion, the trial court’s decision is affirmed by this summary order. Rule 30.25(b).

Since the trial court’s rulings on the Bat-son motion are affirmed, defendant’s sentence is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a resentencing hearing pursuant to the instructions in Pickett I, supra, 926 S.W.2d at 875.

All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In State v. Pickett, 926 S.W.2d 872 (Mo.App.1996) (Pickett I), Tommy Pickett appealed his sentences as a class X offender, section 558.019, RSMo 1994,¹ of a life term for assault in the first degree, section 565.050, and a consecutive term of thirty years for burglary in the first degree, section 569.160. As to his first point, the court of appeals found that the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s Batson motion prior to allowing the defendant to make an offer of proof that the state’s proffered reasons for the strike were merely pretextual and, in fact, racially motivated. The cause was remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue and entry of an appropriate order.

Following a hearing after remand, the trial court found that no Batson violation occurred. Finding that the trial court’s decision in this regard is not clearly erroneous and believing that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion, the trial court’s decision is affirmed by this summary order. Rule 30.25(b).

Since the trial court’s rulings on the Bat-son motion are affirmed, defendant’s sentence is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a resentencing hearing pursuant to the instructions in Pickett I, supra, 926 S.W.2d at 875.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

973 S.W.2d 851, 1998 Mo. LEXIS 50, 1998 WL 313563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pickett-mo-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack