Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donald Richard NAPPIER, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-01-19
Citations: 480 S.W.3d 419
Docket Number: No. ED 102428
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donald Richard NAPPIER, Appellant.
Judges: Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 480
Pages: 419–420

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donald Richard NAPPIER, Appellant.
No. ED 102428
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
Filed: January 19, 2016
William J. Swift, Woodrail Centre, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, Missouri 65203, for Appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Rachel Sara Flaster, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, for Respondent.
Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
A jury convicted Donald Richard Nappier ("Nappier") of one count of first>degree assault, a class A felony; one count of first-degree assault, a class B felony; two associated counts of armed criminal-action; and one count of driving while intoxicated arising out of an incident in which Nappier, while- heavily intoxicated, struck Tasha Hardeastle and Tim Briggs with' his pickup truck, seriously injuring Hardeastle. On appeal, Nappier challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his convictions for first-degree assault, which, if successful, would render his convictions for the associated counts of armed criminal action erroneous. Specifically, Nappier contends that there was insufficient evidence that he knowingly attempted to cause serious physical injury to Hardeastle and Briggs by hitting them with his truck. Because we find that there was sufficient evidence, we affirm.
The evidence in support, of the jury's verdict is sufficient, An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25.