State v. Tuter

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Tuter

919 S.W.2d 22, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 297, 1996 WL 76146

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 1996

DocketNo. 20313

StatusPublished

This text of 919 S.W.2d 22 (State v. Tuter) 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. Tuter, 919 S.W.2d 22, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 297, 1996 WL 76146 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PARRISH, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, for driving while intoxicated. § 577.010.¹ His case was tried before the court without a jury. Prior to trial, the Department of Revenue revoked appellant’s driver’s license as permitted by § 302.500, et seq., based on the same conduct that resulted in the driving while intoxicated charge. The only issue on appeal is whether the criminal conviction amounts to double jeopardy because of the state’s previous revocation of appellant’s driver’s license.

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the information charging him with driving while intoxicated contending the prior revocation of his driver’s license for the same conduct upon which the criminal charge was based was double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion holding that there was no double jeopardy. No error of law appears. See State v. Mayo, 915 S.W.2d 758 (Mo. banc 1996). Further opinion would have no prece-dential value. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

PREWITT, P.J., and CROW, J., concur.

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

PARRISH, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, for driving while intoxicated. § 577.010.¹ His case was tried before the court without a jury. Prior to trial, the Department of Revenue revoked appellant’s driver’s license as permitted by § 302.500, et seq., based on the same conduct that resulted in the driving while intoxicated charge. The only issue on appeal is whether the criminal conviction amounts to double jeopardy because of the state’s previous revocation of appellant’s driver’s license.

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the information charging him with driving while intoxicated contending the prior revocation of his driver’s license for the same conduct upon which the criminal charge was based was double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion holding that there was no double jeopardy. No error of law appears. See State v. Mayo, 915 S.W.2d 758 (Mo. banc 1996). Further opinion would have no prece-dential value. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

PREWITT, P.J., and CROW, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

919 S.W.2d 22, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 297, 1996 WL 76146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tuter-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack