State v. Liggins

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Liggins

186 S.W.3d 288, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1748, 2005 WL 3159709

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 2005

DocketNo. ED 86033

StatusPublished

This text of 186 S.W.3d 288 (State v. Liggins) 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. Liggins, 186 S.W.3d 288, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1748, 2005 WL 3159709 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Liggins (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of driving while intoxicated (DWI). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the record contained sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of DWI. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App.E.D.1996). We also conclude that it was not improper to proceed with the prosecution in circuit court and that no prejudice resulted to Defendant in proceeding under the information as charged. 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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Liggins (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of driving while intoxicated (DWI). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the record contained sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of DWI. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App.E.D.1996). We also conclude that it was not improper to proceed with the prosecution in circuit court and that no prejudice resulted to Defendant in proceeding under the information as charged. 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 S.W.3d 288, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1748, 2005 WL 3159709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-liggins-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack