Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mark A. VANSICKLE, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1989-08-15
Citations: 774 S.W.2d 583
Docket Number: No. 55171
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mark A. VANSICKLE, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 774
Pages: 583–583

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mark A. VANSICKLE, Defendant/Appellant.
No. 55171.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Aug. 15, 1989.
Charles C. Schwartz, Jr., Clayton, for defendant/appellant.
William J. Hannah, Pros. Atty., Caroline Komyati, Asst. Pros. Atty., St. Charles, for plaintiff/respondent.

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).