Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Robert E. BAN, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-10-08
Citations: 87 S.W.3d 878
Docket Number: No. ED 80468
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Robert E. BAN, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, SR. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 87
Pages: 878–879

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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).