In Re the Care & Treatment of Giese

Missouri Court of Appeals

In Re the Care & Treatment of Giese

179 S.W.3d 411, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1847, 2005 WL 3384725

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 13, 2005

DocketED 85703

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.W.3d 411 (In Re the Care & Treatment of Giese) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re the Care & Treatment of Giese, 179 S.W.3d 411, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1847, 2005 WL 3384725 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard Giese (hereinafter, “Giese”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered following a bénch trial finding him to be a sexually violent predator and committing him to the custody and care of the Department of Mental Health pursuant to Sections 632.480-.513 RSMo (2002). Giese raises two points on appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the *412 reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard Giese (hereinafter, “Giese”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered following a bénch trial finding him to be a sexually violent predator and committing him to the custody and care of the Department of Mental Health pursuant to Sections 632.480-.513 RSMo (2002). Giese raises two points on appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the *412 reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.W.3d 411, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1847, 2005 WL 3384725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-care-treatment-of-giese-moctapp-2005.