State v. Browning

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Browning

529 S.W.3d 924

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 3, 2017

DocketED 104768

StatusPublished

This text of 529 S.W.3d 924 (State v. Browning) 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

State v. Browning, 529 S.W.3d 924 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Preston Browning (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction for one count of driving while intoxicated, in violation of Section 577.010, and one count of property damage in the first-degree, in violation of Section 569.100. We find no error and affirm the judgment of conviction.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting [925]*925forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Preston Browning (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction for one count of driving while intoxicated, in violation of Section 577.010, and one count of property damage in the first-degree, in violation of Section 569.100. We find no error and affirm the judgment of conviction.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting [925]*925forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 S.W.3d 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-browning-moctapp-2017.