Case Name: Andre JOHNSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-05-07
Citations: 75 S.W.3d 296
Docket Number: No. ED 80234
Parties: Andre JOHNSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before GEORGE W. DRAPER III, P.J., and MARY R. RUSSELL, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 75
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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 memoran dum 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).