Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Roosevelt LIVINGSTON, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-11-27
Citations: 386 S.W.3d 892
Docket Number: No. ED 97981
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Roosevelt LIVINGSTON, Appellant.
Judges: Before: LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and KURT S. ODENWALD, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 386
Pages: 892–892

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Roosevelt LIVINGSTON, Appellant.
No. ED 97981.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Nov. 27, 2012.
Amanda Faerber, Assistant Public Defender, Office of the Missouri Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Jessica P. Meredith, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and KURT S. ODENWALD, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Roosevelt Livingston ("Livingston"), appeals from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict for the unlawful sale of a controlled substance, Section 195.211, RSMo. Cum.Supp.2010. On appeal, Livingston argues that the trial court erred in overruling his Batson challenge to State's peremptory strikes of two African American venirepersons because State's decision was based on race. Livingston also asserts that the trial court erred in oveiruling his objection to State's closing argument, which improperly inflamed the passions of the jury.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this ease would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R.Crim. P. 30.25(b).