State v. IREK

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. IREK

340 S.W.3d 114, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1407, 2010 WL 4075438

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 19, 2010

DocketED 93392

StatusPublished

This text of 340 S.W.3d 114 (State v. IREK) 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. IREK, 340 S.W.3d 114, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1407, 2010 WL 4075438 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Gary Daniel Irek, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Audrain County after a jury convicted him of driving while intoxicated, in violation of section 577.010 RSMo. (2000), and driving while revoked, in violation of section 302.321 RSMo. (Supp.2007). The court sentenced the defendant as a chronic offender to concurrent sentences of fifteen years’ imprisonment for the DWI and to four years’ imprisonment for driving while his license was revoked. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Gary Daniel Irek, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Audrain County after a jury convicted him of driving while intoxicated, in violation of section 577.010 RSMo. (2000), and driving while revoked, in violation of section 302.321 RSMo. (Supp.2007). The court sentenced the defendant as a chronic offender to concurrent sentences of fifteen years’ imprisonment for the DWI and to four years’ imprisonment for driving while his license was revoked. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 S.W.3d 114, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1407, 2010 WL 4075438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-irek-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack