Case ID: sw3d_75/html/0296-01.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

Andre JOHNSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 80234.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    May 7, 2002.
    Nancy L. Vincent, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Richard A. Starnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., and MARY R. RUSSELL, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Andre Johnson, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. This court previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for first degree robbery and armed criminal action. State v. Johnson, 7 S.W.3d 411 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). In this appeal, Movant claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to complete a Batson motion in a timely manner. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).