Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Brian Oliver Sheffield, Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-brian-oliver-sheffield-appellant-18708
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=18708
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent%2C+v.+Brian+Oliver+Sheffield%2C+Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: felony)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
Case Style:  State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Brian Oliver Sheffield, Appellant.
Case Number:  53643
Handdown Date:  12/30/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Boone County, Hon. Frank Conley
Counsel for Appellant:  Patrick Eng
Counsel for Respondent:  Philip Koppe
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Lowenstein, P.J., Breckenridge and Hanna, JJ.
Opinion:
ORDER
A jury found the defendant, Brian Sheffield, guilty of the class D felony of driving while intoxicated  (section 
577.010, RSMo 1994), and the court sentenced him as an intoxicated-related "persistent offender" (section 577.023.1(2), 
RSMo 1994), to a six-year term of imprisonment.  The jury also found the defendant guilty of resisting arrest ( section 
575.150, RSMo 1994), but the trial court granted the defendant a new trial on that charge.  A published opinion would 
have no precedential value.  Affirmed.  Rule 30.25(b) V.A.M.R.
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.