State of Missouri vs. Tyrone M. Seals
Decision date: September 25, 2012WD74339
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Syllabus
STATE OF MISSOURI,
Respondent,
v.
TYRONE M. SEALS,
Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
WD74339
OPINION FILED:
September 25, 2012
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Callaway County, Missouri The Honorable Carol A. England, Judge
Before Division One: James M. Smart, Jr., Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge
Tyrone M. Seals ("Seals") was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his driver's license was revoked, which is a class A misdemeanor under Section 302.321 RSMo. 1 At a bench trial in Callaway County, Seals was found guilty and sentenced to serve forty days in jail. Seals appeals. We affirm. Factual Background On February 10, 2011, Seals was pulled over in Fulton, Missouri by Police Officer Kyle Townley ("Townley") for driving while his license was revoked. Townley observed
1 All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 as updated through the most recent cumulative supplement unless otherwise indicated.
2
a white van traveling backwards on Carver Street and then turn onto Green Street. Townley proceeded to stop the vehicle and identified the driver as Seals. A computer check confirmed that Seals's license was suspended. Seals stated that he knew his license was suspended, and that it would cost eight hundred dollars to get it reinstated. After a bench trial, Seals was found guilty. Seals timely filed this appeal. This Court's standard of review, regardless of a court-tried or jury-tried case, is to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could have reasonably found guilt. State v. Atterberry, 358 S.W.3d 564, 565 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (citation omitted). When analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence, we accept as true all evidence, and reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the verdict while disregarding evidence to the contrary. Id. In his sole point on appeal, Seals argues that the trial court erred in finding him guilty because the State failed to prove that the van he was driving constitutes a motor vehicle. The State argues that a van is by common knowledge a motor vehicle. A "motor vehicle" is defined as "any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively upon tracks except motorized bicycles, as defined in Section 307.180." Section 302.010(10). A "vehicle" is defined as "any mechanical device on wheels, designed primarily for use, or used on highways, except motorized bicycles, vehicles propelled or drawn by horses or human power, or vehicles used exclusively on rails or tracks, or cotton trailers or motorized wheelchairs operated by handicapped persons." Section 302.010(25).
3
The officer testified that he saw a white van being operated backward on a city street and testified that the van was a "vehicle." We find that it is a reasonable inference that the van was in fact a motor vehicle. As we have previously held, "It is common knowledge that a pickup truck is a motor vehicle." State v. Thornton, 441 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Mo. App. 1969). So too is it a reasonable inference from the evidence that a van is a motor vehicle. Point One is denied and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
/s/ Gary D. Witt __________________________________ Gary D. Witt, Judge
All concur
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976
Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.