Case ID: sw3d_87/html/0878-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Robert E. BAN, Defendant/Appellant.
    No. ED 80468.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Oct. 8, 2002.
    Lawrence L. Pratt, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, SR. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Robert E. Ban, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a controlled substance (heroin) in violation of section 195.202, RSMo 2000, and possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of section 195.233, RSMo 2000. He contends the trial court clearly erred in rejecting his challenge, brought pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), to the State’s peremptory strike of a black, female venireperson.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude no clear error exists. State v. Drewel, 835 S.W.2d 494, 496 (Mo.App. E.D.1992). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).