927, 931 (Mo.App.1997) (noting that the State also had used some of its peremptory challenges to remove Caucasian venirepersons who had remained silent throughout voir dire). Second, the prosecutor stated that Montiel appeared unkempt. A venireper-son’s appearance can provide a valid, race-neutral reason for being peremptorily struck. See, e.g., Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 769, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (a juror’s long, unkempt hair, mustache and beard provided a race-neutral, nondiseriminatory reason for the strike); State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 15 (Mo. banc 1992) (noting that the venireperson’s “appearance” was one of the nonpretextual, race-neutral explanations supporting the peremptory challenge); State v. Washington, 288 S.W.3d 312, 316-17 (Mo.App.2009) (<HOLDING>). Third, a venireperson’s prior criminal
holding that a defendants exercise of peremptory challenges  is not denied or impaired when the defendant chooses to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause holding prebatson that challenge to africanamericans who had limited education was raceneutral holding that there was a raceneutral reason the states use of a peremptory challenge against a venireperson who had a very individualistic hairstyle holding that age is an acceptable raceneutral reason for striking a prospective juror holding that a venireperson who does not live in the county is subject to challenge