YATES v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, 502 S.W.3d 720 (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals of Missouri
Number: inadvmoco170323000735
Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 25, 2016
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM : Philip T. Yates appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Callaway County, Missouri, sustaining the Director of Revenue's one-year revocation of Yates's driver's license for refusal to submit to a chemical test of his breath pursuant to section 577.041, RSMo 2000. On appeal, Yates alleges that the trial court erred in upholding the revocation of his driver's license because its finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Yates was driving while intoxi
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM : Philip T. Yates appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Callaway County, Missouri, sustaining the Director of Revenue's one-year revocation of Yates's driver's license for refusal to submit to a chemical test of his breath pursuant to section 577.041, RSMo 2000. On appeal, Yates alleges that the trial court erred in upholding the revocation of his driver's license because its finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Yates was driving while intoxic..
More
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
Philip T. Yates appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Callaway County, Missouri, sustaining the Director of Revenue's one-year revocation of Yates's driver's license for refusal to submit to a chemical test of his breath pursuant to section 577.041, RSMo 2000. On appeal, Yates alleges that the trial court erred in upholding the revocation of his driver's license because its finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Yates was driving while intoxicated was against the weight of the evidence. Because the weight of the evidence supports that the officer had reasonable grounds, i.e., probable cause, to believe that Yates was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in this per curiam order and have provided the parties a legal memorandum explaining our ruling.
The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Source: Leagle
