Legal Opinion

State v. Quigley

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 6, 1992No. 17793PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MONTGOMERY, Judge.

After a non-jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of “Driving While Revoked.” On appeal, Defendant only attacks the sufficiency of the information. The State has filed no brief in opposition.

Defendant’s point relied on states:

The trial court erred in rendering a judgment of conviction against the defendant because the information seeking to charge the defendant with a crime was insufficient and failed to charge the essential elements of a crime, and therefore, the court was without jurisdiction to render its judgment....

The information is reproduced in the record in the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. GilmoreSupreme Court of Missouri · 1983
  2. State v. HorstMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. State v. CountsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1990
  4. State v. PowellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1986

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. City of Montgomery v. ChristianMissouri Court of Appeals · 2004
  2. State v. HuffMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. State v. WalkerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. State v. LewellynMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. State v. WatsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API