Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Antoine D. BARTON, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-02-09
Citations: 481 S.W.3d 602
Docket Number: No. ED 102327
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Antoine D. BARTON, Appellant.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 481
Pages: 602–602

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Antoine D. BARTON, Appellant.
No. ED 102327
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Filed: February 9, 2016
Emmett D. Queener, Woodrail Centre, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, Missouri 65203, for Appellant.
Karen L. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, for Respondent.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Antoine D. Barton (Appellant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, entered after a jury trial, finding him guilty of first-degree murder arid armed criminal action. On appeal, Appellant asserts the trial court erred by .admitting jailhouse phone recordings of a State witness for two reasons: (1) the State committed a discovery violation by giving late notice to Appellant of its intent to use the recorded phone calls, and (2) the State failed to lay a proper foundation to admit the recorded phone calls. Finding no error, we affirm. ,
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).