 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rider v. Director of Revenue11/30/1999
The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from a judgment granting Claude T. Rider (Rider) a hardship driving privilege. Director contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the order because Rider was statutorily ineligible for such relief. We agree. We, therefore, reverse.
FACTS
On August 19, 1998, Rider filed a "Petition For Limited Driving Privileges" claiming he needed to operate a motor vehicle to earn a living as a self-employed "dry waller" in Salem, Missouri. Rider's petition averred that on October 9, 1991, he had been notified by the Director that his operator's license "w[ould] be revoked for a 10 year period from and after October 9, 1991," because he had multiple convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Rider also alleged that (a) he had filed or would file proof of financial responsibility with Director "prior to the grant of any relief"; (b) he was eligible for a limited driving privilege under ? 302.309.3(6)(a) "as he has served more than three (3) years of his suspension without conviction"; and (c) he had "not been convicted of any offense related to alcohol, control substances or drugs since his revocation." Rider also attached a copy of his "Missouri Driver Record" to his petition.
These and other assertions in Rider's petition were drawn from section 302.309.3(6)(a), RSMo Cum. Supp. 1996, which authorizes a limited hardship driving privilege for a person under a ten-year revocation if certain conditions are met and "the applicant is not otherwise ineligible." Rider's petition fails to specifically aver that there were multiple instances when the Director revoked his driving privileges for refusing to submit to a chemical test in violation of section 577.041. At trial, Director offered Rider's driving record into evidence. This record revealed that Director had issued a "Chemical Refusal Revocation" for Rider's license on four occasions, July 21, 1984; May 22, 1989; October 12, 1990; and February 19, 1995.
Both at trial and on appeal, Director has taken the position that Rider was "otherwise ineligible" for a limited driving privilege under section 302.309.3(5)(f), RSMo Cum. Supp. 1996. The trial court disagreed and granted Rider a limited driving privilege. In so doing, the trial court held, inter alia, that
"section 302.309[.3](5)(f) is not applicable as it is the court's opinion that when this section is read together with related sections and viewed from its legislative history, it applies only when a person who is revoked under section 577.041 RSMo. 1996 has not completed the one year revocation set out there."
In a single point relied on, Director argues that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant Rider a limited driving privilege under section 302.309.3(6)(a) because he was "otherwise ineligible" for a limited driving privilege under section 302.309.3(5)(f) and Hagan v. Director of Revenue, 968 S.W.2d 704 (Mo.banc 1998), in that Rider had violated section 577.041 more than once by refusing to submit to chemical tests. We agree with Director.
In Hagan, the Supreme Court of Missouri interpreted section 302.309.3(6)(a) as meaning that "an applicant is only eligible for a hardship license if: (1) he was ineligible to obtain an operator's license for ten years pursuant to section 302.060(9); (2) he had served three years of the ineligibility; and (3) he was not 'otherwise ineligible for a limited hardship driving privilege' under 'this section' which includes subsection .3(5)." 968 S.W.2d at 706 (emphasis added). The Hagan court explained that Hagan's ten-year DWI revocation for multiple DWI convictions, standing alone, did not disqualify him
Page 1 2 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|