STATE v. KOLKEDY, 28 S.W.3d 321 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000)

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. ROBERT KOLKEDY, Appellant.

No. ED75704Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
Date: August 22, 2000 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied October 4, 2000 Application for Transfer Denied October 31, 2000

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION OR TRANSFER TO THE SUPREME COURT.]

Please substitute the correction on the reverse side of this page in the above-styled appeal handed down on May 23, 2000, together with page two of the Memorandum (for judges and attorneys of record only). This substitution does not constitute a new opinion.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Grace M. Nichols.

David C. Hemingway, Paul A. Yarns, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty.Gen., John M. Morris, III, Asst. Atty.Gen., Adriane D. Crouse, Asst.Atty.Gen.

Before Kathianne Knaup Crane, P.J., and Robert G. Dowd, Jr., and Sherri B. Sullivan, JJ.

ORDER
PER CURIAM.

Robert Kolkedy (Kolkedy) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of resisting arrest, Section 575.150, RSMo 1994; abuse of a child, Section 568.060, RSMo 1994; and assault in the third degree, Section 565.070, RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to two five-year sentences and a one-year sentence, to be served concurrently to each other. Kolkedy claims the trial court erred in (1) sentencing him for both abuse of a child and assault in the third degree; (2) overruling his motion to suppress statements and admitting those statements; and (3) failing to declare a mistrial sua

Page 322

sponte when a State’s witness testified that Kolkedy invoked his right to remain silent during an interview.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the claim of error to have no merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).