OTT LAW

Terry Geldbach, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Terry Geldbach, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 72616 Handdown Date: 03/17/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Daniel J. O'Toole Counsel for Appellant: Steven P. Andreyuk Counsel for Respondent: Evan J. Buchheim Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, J.J., concur. Opinion: Opinion modified by Court's own motion on June 2, 1998. This substitution does not constitute a new opinion. ORDER Terry Geldbach ( Driver) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County sustaining the Director of Revenue's (Director) suspension of his driver's license after a trial de novo pursuant to Section 302.535, RSMo Cum. Supp. 1996. Driver claims the blood analysis test results were improperly admitted into evidence because Director failed to show that: (1) an approved standard simulated solution was used to calibrate the breathalyzer machine; and (2) the solution used to calibrate the breathalyzer machine had been certified by the manufacturer. However, Driver has failed to preserve this alleged error by making a proper, timely objection to the admission of the breath test results. Sellenriek v. Director of Revenue, 826 S.W.2d 338, 341 (Mo. banc 1992).

As an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm by written order. A memorandum of law setting forth the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties for their use only. Due to our decision, we also deny Driver's "Motion for Court Costs and Attorney's Fees." The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Related Opinions