Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gary Duane KEMPER, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1982-01-12
Citations: 629 S.W.2d 626
Docket Number: No. WD 32191
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gary Duane KEMPER, Appellant.
Judges: Before TURNAGE, P. J., and PRITCH-ARD and CLARK, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 629
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gary Duane KEMPER, Appellant.
No. WD 32191.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Jan. 12, 1982.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Overruled and Denied Feb. 16, 1982.
Application to Transfer Denied March 16, 1982.
James W. Fletcher, Public Defender, Gary L. Gardner, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.
Before TURNAGE, P. J., and PRITCH-ARD and CLARK, JJ.

Opinion:
CLARK, Judge.
Gary Duane Kemper was jury tried and convicted of robbery, second degree, § 569.-030, RSMo 1978, and was sentenced to a term of ten years imprisonment. On this appeal, he contends the trial court erred in failing to suppress the portion of a written confession in which Kemper admitted perpetrating the offense with which he was charged in this case.
This case is one of a triad conjunctively appealed, all of which present the same contention of trial error. The common source for all the cases is a confession in which Kemper admitted having committed a number of robberies. In the trial of each case reference to the confession was limited to the details of the incident then involved in that prosecution.
In State v. Kemper, 629 S.W.2d 624 (Mo.App.1982) No. WD 32,206, handed down January 12, 1982, by Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, the details of Kem-per's contention are fully set out and will not be repeated. The decision there rules the point raised in this case and requires the conclusion, on the authorities cited, that the inculpatory statements were properly received in evidence.
The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
All concur.