State v. Glasgow

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Glasgow

928 S.W.2d 414, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1515, 1996 WL 511505

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 10, 1996

DocketNo. WD 52228

StatusPublished

This text of 928 S.W.2d 414 (State v. Glasgow) 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. Glasgow, 928 S.W.2d 414, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1515, 1996 WL 511505 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Gregory S. Glasgow, was cited for Driving While Intoxicated, and his driving privileges were suspended pursuant to § 302.505, RSMo 1994, The trial court dismissed the criminal charges holding that the administrative hearing revoking the defendant’s license and the subsequent criminal prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The state appeals.

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that an administrative suspension of driving privileges is not punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy. State v. Mayo, 915 S.W.2d 758, 762-63 (Mo. banc 1996). Consequently, the trial court erred in dismissing the criminal charges, and its order of dismissal is reversed and the cause remanded for disposition.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Gregory S. Glasgow, was cited for Driving While Intoxicated, and his driving privileges were suspended pursuant to § 302.505, RSMo 1994, The trial court dismissed the criminal charges holding that the administrative hearing revoking the defendant’s license and the subsequent criminal prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The state appeals.

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that an administrative suspension of driving privileges is not punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy. State v. Mayo, 915 S.W.2d 758, 762-63 (Mo. banc 1996). Consequently, the trial court erred in dismissing the criminal charges, and its order of dismissal is reversed and the cause remanded for disposition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

928 S.W.2d 414, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1515, 1996 WL 511505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-glasgow-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack