State v. Hurd

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hurd

303 S.W.3d 167, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 206, 2010 WL 605292

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 23, 2010·No. WD 69857·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Bradley Hurd appeals his convictions following a bench trial for driving while intoxicated, section 577.010, RSMo 2000, and driving while revoked, section 302.321, RSMo Cum.Supp.2008, and sentences to concurrent terms of six years imprisonment and one year in county jail, respectively. Hurd claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained at a sobriety checkpoint because the checkpoint was not conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth in State v. Welch, 755 S.W.2d 624 (Mo.App. W.D.1988). Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The convictions are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Bradley Hurd appeals his convictions following a bench trial for driving while intoxicated, section 577.010, RSMo 2000, and driving while revoked, section 302.321, RSMo Cum.Supp.2008, and sentences to concurrent terms of six years imprisonment and one year in county jail, respectively. Hurd claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained at a sobriety checkpoint because the checkpoint was not conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth in State v. Welch, 755 S.W.2d 624 (Mo.App. W.D.1988). Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The convictions are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Hurd, 303 S.W.3d 167, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 206, 2010 WL 605292 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

303 S.W.3d 167 (State v. Hurd) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related