State v. Trent-Kettelkamp

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Trent-Kettelkamp

563 S.W.3d 851

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 2018

DocketWD 80815

StatusPublished

This text of 563 S.W.3d 851 (State v. Trent-Kettelkamp) 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. Trent-Kettelkamp, 563 S.W.3d 851 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Bailey Trent-Kettelkamp appeals his convictions following a jury trial for second-degree (felony) murder, section 565.021, RSMo 2016, and committing violence against an offender in the Department of Corrections, section 217.385, RSMo 2016, and concurrent sentences as a prior and persistent offender of twenty-five years and ten years imprisonment, *852respectively. He contends that the trial court erred in (1) overruling his Batson challenge to the prosecutor's peremptory strike of a venireperson and (2) overruling his motion to dismiss the felony murder charge under the merger doctrine. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment of convictions is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

Bailey Trent-Kettelkamp appeals his convictions following a jury trial for second-degree (felony) murder, section 565.021, RSMo 2016, and committing violence against an offender in the Department of Corrections, section 217.385, RSMo 2016, and concurrent sentences as a prior and persistent offender of twenty-five years and ten years imprisonment, *852respectively. He contends that the trial court erred in (1) overruling his Batson challenge to the prosecutor's peremptory strike of a venireperson and (2) overruling his motion to dismiss the felony murder charge under the merger doctrine. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment of convictions is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

563 S.W.3d 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-trent-kettelkamp-moctapp-2018.