Case ID: sw3d_525/html/0218-01.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, Respondent, v. Harold HENDERSON, Appellant.
    No. ED 104867
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
    Filed: August 22, 2017
    Lisa M. Stroup, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, Saint Louis, MO. 63101, for appellant.
    Dora A. Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.
    Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Harold Henderson (“Henderson”) appeals the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of first-degree robbery, one count of ñrst-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action. On appeal, Henderson argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification, and in overruling his objections at trial to evidence and arguments related to the witnesses’ identifications of Henderson because the pre-trial photographic lineup procedure was impermissi-bly suggestive, and rendered the pre-trial and in-court identifications unreliable. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).