State v. Vansickle

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Vansickle

774 S.W.2d 583, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1165, 1989 WL 91347

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 15, 1989

DocketNo. 55171

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

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

Pincite

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