 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hawkins v. Director of Revenue11/23/1999
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Donald E. Dalton
Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Gaertner, P.J., and J. Dowd, J., concur.
Opinion:
The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the judgment of the circuit court reinstating the driving privileges of Thomas Lee Hawkins (Driver). We reverse and remand.
Director suspended Driver's driving privileges pursuant to section 577.041, RSMo Cum. Supp. 1998, after Driver refused a breathalyzer test. Driver filed a petition for review with the circuit court. On January 19, 1999, Driver's petition was submitted to the court on the record and no hearing was held. The record consisted of a certified copy of the Department of Revenue records, which included the Alcohol Influence Report, notice of revocation and Driver's Missouri Driver Record. Driver offered no records or testimony.
The Department of Revenue records were certified by the custodian of records pursuant to section 302.312, RSMo Cum. Supp. 1998. Officer Steve Davis prepared the Alcohol Influence Report and attached supplemental report. In that report, Officer Davis indicated that on October 16, 1998, at about 11:46 p.m., he saw Driver operating a Chevy truck westbound on Highway 40 in St. Charles County at Prospect. Davis observed the truck cross the solid white line three times by about two feet. He pulled Driver over. While speaking with him, Davis could smell a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath. He also noted that Driver's eyes were watery and bloodshot and his pupils had a poor reaction to light. Driver also swayed while he walked and his speech was slurred. Davis requested that Driver submit to field sobriety tests, but he refused. Davis then arrested Driver for driving while intoxicated.
Davis advised Driver of his Miranda rights. Afterward, Driver admitted he had been drinking and had consumed about six beers. Davis then informed Driver of the Missouri Implied Consent Law, including that: (1) he was under arrest for DWI; (2) Davis was requesting a breathalyzer test to determine his blood alcohol content; and (3) if Driver refused the test, his driver's license would be immediately revoked for one year. At that time, Driver refused to submit to a breathalyzer test.
After the case was submitted, the circuit court issued a judgment finding in favor of Driver. The court issued neither findings of fact nor Conclusions of law, thus providing no reasons for its decision. Director now appeals from this judgment.
On appeal, Director contends the circuit court erred in reinstating Driver's driving privileges because the court misinterpreted the law and its decision is against the weight of the evidence. Director argues that it proved a prima facie case supporting the revocation of Driver's driving privileges, while Driver offered no rebuttal evidence.
Our review of the trial court's decision is controlled by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Therefore, the decision will be affirmed unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Id. At a court hearing to review the license revocation, the director has the burden of proof. McMaster v. Lohman, 941 S.W.2d 813, 815-16 (Mo. App.1997).
In a proceeding under section 577.041, the trial court is to determine (1) whether the person was arrested, (2) whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the person was driving while intoxicated, and (3) whether the pe
Page 1 2 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|