State v. Ndungu

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ndungu

514 S.W.3d 62, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 190, 2017 WL 1056210

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 21, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104016

StatusPublished

This text of 514 S.W.3d 62 (State v. Ndungu) 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. Ndungu, 514 S.W.3d 62, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 190, 2017 WL 1056210 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

James Ndungu (“Ndungu”) appeals the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury convicted him of driving while intoxicated (“DWI”). On appeal, Ndungu contests the sufficiency of the evidence and assigns trial-court error to the admission of certain evidence. Because ample evidence supported the conviction and no plain error occurred, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[63]*63The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

James Ndungu (“Ndungu”) appeals the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury convicted him of driving while intoxicated (“DWI”). On appeal, Ndungu contests the sufficiency of the evidence and assigns trial-court error to the admission of certain evidence. Because ample evidence supported the conviction and no plain error occurred, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[63]*63The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

514 S.W.3d 62, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 190, 2017 WL 1056210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ndungu-moctapp-2017.