 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Staton v. Director of Revenue3/21/2000
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Carroll County, Hon. Robert A. Bryant
Opinion Vote: Affirmed. Ellis and Smith, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
Jackie Lee Staton appeals the judgment of the circuit court upholding the Director of Revenue's ("Director") revocation of his driving privileges. Staton argues that we should declare that he did not refuse to take a breath test under section 577.041, RSMo Supp. 1998, because he was not offered a test until four hours and fifty-one minutes after his arrest. Staton contends that such time lapse made the request so unreasonable that he cannot be deemed to have refused.
Factual Background
On December 26, 1998, at approximately 10:40 p.m., Missouri State Highway Trooper Daniel Landi was driving west on Missouri 10 between Carrollton and Norborne. A vehicle approached rapidly from the rear. Trooper Landi activated his radar and clocked the vehicle at 69 m.p.h. The trooper stopped Jackie Lee Staton, the driver of the vehicle. Trooper Landi noticed a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on Staton's breath. He further observed that Staton's eyes were bloodshot, watery and glassy. Trooper Landi administered seven field sobriety tests to Staton. Staton's performance caused Landi to believe Staton was intoxicated. The trooper put Staton under arrest, handcuffed him and placed him into the patrol car.
On the way to the Carroll County Sheriff's Department, Staton told Trooper Landi that he desperately needed to urinate. Trooper Landi pulled over to the side of the road and uncuffed Staton. Staton fled.
Several hours later, at approximately 3:30 a.m., Trooper Landi apprehended Staton at his mother's residence and transported him back to the sheriff's department. Staton was read the implied consent form. When asked to take a breathalyzer test, he refused.
The Director revoked Staton's license for refusal to submit to chemical testing. Staton filed a petition for review. After a hearing, the trial court found that Staton refused the test. Accordingly, the court upheld the suspension.
Standard of Review
Review of the trial court's reinstatement of a driver's license after it has been suspended is the same as that of any other judge-tried case. Endsley v. Director of Revenue, 6 S.W.3d 153, 157 (Mo. App. 1999). The trial court's decision must be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it; it is against the weight of the evidence; or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Rule 73.01(a)(3) provides that " ll fact issues upon which no specific findings are made shall be considered as having been found in accordance with the result reached." It is the trial court's prerogative to accept or reject all, part or none of the testimony with which it is presented. Berry v. Director of Revenue, 885 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Mo. banc 1994),
The trial court must make three findings in order to uphold the revocation of a driver's license for failure to submit to chemical testing pursuant to section 577.041.4, RSMo Supp. 1998: (1) that the driver was arrested; (2) that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the driver was driving while intoxicated; and (3) that the driver refused to submit to a chemical test. Williams v. Lohman, 996 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Mo. App. 1999). The Director bears the burden of proof; failure to satisfy that burden results in a reinstatement of the defendant's driver's license. Lorton v. Director of Revenue, 985 S.W.2d 437, 440 (Mo. App. 1999). In t
Page 1 2 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|