State v. Weinert

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Weinert

502 S.W.3d 78, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1047, 2016 WL 6212067

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2016

DocketED 102896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 502 S.W.3d 78 (State v. Weinert) 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. Weinert, 502 S.W.3d 78, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1047, 2016 WL 6212067 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bradley Weinert (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, for driving while intoxicated, in violation of Section 577.010. Pursuant to Section 577.023, Defendant was sentenced as a chronic offender to eleven years of imprisonment. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bradley Weinert (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, for driving while intoxicated, in violation of Section 577.010. Pursuant to Section 577.023, Defendant was sentenced as a chronic offender to eleven years of imprisonment. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 S.W.3d 78, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1047, 2016 WL 6212067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-weinert-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack