Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eugene Harrell Sardis, Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eugene-harrell-sardis-appellant-19341
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=19341
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent%2C+v.+Eugene+Harrell+Sardis%2C+Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=28&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 28; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
Case Style:  State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eugene Harrell Sardis, Appellant.
Case Number:  No. 53648
Handdown Date:  09/30/1997
Appeal From:  Cole County Circuit Court
Counsel for Appellant:  James C. Cox
Counsel for Respondent:  John M. Morris
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM.
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Before Smart, P.J., Lowenstein  and Stith, J.J.
Opinion:
Mr. Sardis appeals his judgment of conviction of first degree robbery and his 20 year sentence, alleging that the 
trial court plainly erred in overruling his challenge to the state's use of a peremptory strike to remove the only African-
American venireperson, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1985).  Finding Mr. Sardis has failed to preserve 
this issue for appeal and further finding no precedential value to our decision, we affirm by this summary order and  have 
provided the parties with a memorandum explaining our decision. Rule  30.25(b).
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.