Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Michael LIGGINS, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-11-29
Citations: 186 S.W.3d 288
Docket Number: No. ED 86033
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Michael LIGGINS, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before NANNETTE A. BAKER, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 186
Pages: 288–288

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Michael LIGGINS, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 86033.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Nov. 29, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 24, 2006.
Application for Transfer Denied April 11, 2006.
Celestine Dotson, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Tim Lemen, Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Before NANNETTE A. BAKER, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Michael Liggins (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of driving while intoxicated (DWI). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the record contained sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of DWI. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App.E.D.1996). We also conclude that it was not improper to proceed with the prosecution in circuit court and that no prejudice resulted to Defendant in proceeding under the information as charged. An extended opinion would have no precedential 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 Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).