State v. Koch

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Koch

504 S.W.3d 84, 2016 WL 2895115, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 503

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102982

StatusPublished

This text of 504 S.W.3d 84 (State v. Koch) 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. Koch, 504 S.W.3d 84, 2016 WL 2895115, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 503 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Meiling Koch (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County convicting her of one count of the class B misdemeanor of prostitution, in violation of § 567.020, RSMo (2000). On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argues she did not knowingly and intelligently waive her rights after being given her Miranda warnings in English. Specifically, Defendant asserts there was insufficient evidence she understood her rights and an interpreter or a bilingual Miranda advisement form should have been provided to her.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Meiling Koch (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County convicting her of one count of the class B misdemeanor of prostitution, in violation of § 567.020, RSMo (2000). On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argues she did not knowingly and intelligently waive her rights after being given her Miranda warnings in English. Specifically, Defendant asserts there was insufficient evidence she understood her rights and an interpreter or a bilingual Miranda advisement form should have been provided to her.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 S.W.3d 84, 2016 WL 2895115, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-koch-moctapp-2016.