State v. Giancola

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Giancola

340 S.W.3d 606, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 598, 2011 WL 1531983

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 2011

DocketED 94154

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 340 S.W.3d 606 (State v. Giancola) 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. Giancola, 340 S.W.3d 606, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 598, 2011 WL 1531983 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Robert Giancola (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of the Class B misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated, Section 577.010, 1 and the Class C misdemeanor of failure to provide proof of insurance, Section 303.025. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. Dulany, 781 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Mo.banc 1989), and the verdict-directing instruction contained each element of the offense charged and required the jury to find every fact necessary to constitute essential elements of offense charged. State v. Ward, 745 S.W.2d 666, 670 (Mo.banc 1988). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2006.

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

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Robert Giancola (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of the Class B misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated, Section 577.010, 1 and the Class C misdemeanor of failure to provide proof of insurance, Section 303.025. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. Dulany, 781 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Mo.banc 1989), and the verdict-directing instruction contained each element of the offense charged and required the jury to find every fact necessary to constitute essential elements of offense charged. State v. Ward, 745 S.W.2d 666, 670 (Mo.banc 1988). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2006.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 S.W.3d 606, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 598, 2011 WL 1531983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-giancola-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack