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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eugene L. Wilke, 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-eugene-l-wilke-appellant-18495
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=18495
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.+Eugene+L.+Wilke%2C+Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=28&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: 28; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: misdemeanor)

---
## 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. Eugene L. Wilke, Appellant.
Case Number:  53458
Handdown Date:  12/30/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Vernon E. Scoville, III
Counsel for Appellant:  Peter Koppe
Counsel for Respondent:  Jeff Valenti
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Lowenstein, P.J., Breckenridge and Hanna, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
A jury found the defendant, Eugene L. Wilke, guilty of the class B misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated, 
section 577.010, RSMo. 1994, and of the class A misdemeanor of driving while license suspended, section 302.321, 
RSMo. 1994.  The defendant was sentenced to six months confinement and fined $1000 for driving while intoxicated, and 
30 days confinement and $100 fine for driving while his license was suspended.  The sole point on appeal is whether 
there was sufficient evidence of probable cause to stop, and whether the defendant was driving the vehicle.  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.