State v. York

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. York

291 S.W.3d 859, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1241, 2009 WL 2871102

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 8, 2009

DocketED 92158

StatusPublished

This text of 291 S.W.3d 859 (State v. York) 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. York, 291 S.W.3d 859, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1241, 2009 WL 2871102 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alexander York (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence after a jury convicted him of second-degree burglary and misdemeanor stealing. Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to concurrent terms of ten years for burglary and one year for stealing. Defendant argues that the trial court erred: (1) by denying his Batson 1 challenge to one of the State’s peremptory strikes; and (2) by overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of second-degree burglary. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have *860 no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

1

. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alexander York (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence after a jury convicted him of second-degree burglary and misdemeanor stealing. Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to concurrent terms of ten years for burglary and one year for stealing. Defendant argues that the trial court erred: (1) by denying his Batson 1 challenge to one of the State’s peremptory strikes; and (2) by overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of second-degree burglary. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have *860 no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

1

. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 S.W.3d 859, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1241, 2009 WL 2871102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-york-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack