Case Name: Jacqueline T: PITTMAN, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-03-10
Citations: 456 S.W.3d 545
Docket Number: No. ED 100881
Parties: Jacqueline T: PITTMAN, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.
Judges: Before Sherri'B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 456
Pages: 545–546

Head Matter:
Jacqueline T: PITTMAN, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.
No. ED 100881
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: March 10, 2015
Michael E. Reid, 205 S. Main Street, Suite B, Edwardsville, IL 62025, For Appellant.
Rachel M. Jones, P.O. Box 475, 301 W, High Street, Jefferson City, MO 65105, For Respondent.
Before Sherri'B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Jacqueline T. Pittman appeals from the trial court's judgment upholding the administrative revocation of her driving privileges for refusing to submit to a chemical analysis of her breath under Missouri's Implied Consent Law, Section 577.020 RSMo 2006. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. Velluto v. Dir. of Revenue, 383 S.W.3d 14, 17 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).