Case ID: sw3d_381/html/0378-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ritchie W. MATHES, Appellant.
    No. ED 97033.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    Oct. 2, 2012.
    Emmett D. Queener, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.
    Chris A. Koster, Attorney General, Richard A. Starnes, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. P.J. and ROY L. RICHTER and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ritchie Mathes (“Defendant”) -appeals from the judgment upon his conviction for driving while intoxicated, Section 577.010 RSMo 2000 and from his enhanced sentence as a chronic offender, Section 577.023. Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion: (1) in overruling his objection to the admission into evidence of a blood alcohol analysis, and (2) in permitting the testimony of Judge Fred Westhoff (“Judge Westhoff’) in that his testimony was an improper judicial correction of an erroneous written statement.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). 
      
      . All further statutory references are to RSMo 2000.