State v. Vansickle

774 S.W.2d 583, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1165, 1989 WL 91347
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 15, 1989·No. No. 55171·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Mark Yansickle, appeals from the trial court’s order revoking his probation and sentencing him to six months in the St. Charles County Jail. The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the charge against him nor the jurisdiction of the trial court. Other asserted errors, as here, in probation revocation proceedings must be challenged by a writ of habeas corpus not by a direct appeal. E.g. State v. Henderson, 750 S.W.2d 507, 516 (Mo.App.1988); State v. Morgan, 654 S.W.2d 326 (Mo.App.1983); Boyer v. State, 646 S.W.2d 388 (Mo.App.1983).

An extended opinion would serve no precedential value. The State’s motion to dismiss is granted. Rule 84.16(b).

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

State v. Vansickle, 774 S.W.2d 583, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1165, 1989 WL 91347 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

774 S.W.2d 583 (State v. Vansickle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Burnett
72 S.W.3d 212 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2002)
State v. Stewart
14 S.W.3d 671 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2000)