Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Decalos MEEKS, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-02-07
Citations: 363 S.W.3d 178
Docket Number: No. ED 96903
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Decalos MEEKS, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 363
Pages: 178–179

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Decalos MEEKS, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 96903.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Feb. 7, 2012.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 19, 2012.
Application for Transfer Denied May 1, 2012.
Shaun J. Mackelprang, Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Jefferson City, MO, for Plaintiff/Respondent.
Roxanna A. Mason, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant/Appellant.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Decalos Meeks appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of first-degree tampering of a motor vehicle and resisting or interfering with arrest. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain testimony of the complaining witness. State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 55 (Mo. banc 1998). 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).