 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allen v. Director of Revenue10/12/1999
pattern and concluded that prosecuting attorneys and the Director should coordinate their efforts to avoid this anomaly. Yanuzzi v. Director, No. 75236, slip op. at 4 (Mo. App. E.D., filed June 8, 1999). The facts of the present case, while distinguishable from Yanuzzi, also reveal the lack of respect for the administration of Justice that can be engendered if this practice were to continue. In Yanuzzi, the motion raising the jurisdictional question was filed seven months after the judgment was entered granting the petition. Here, however, the Director filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction prior to the confession of judgment by the prosecuting attorney. Under normal circumstances, the Director would be bound by concessions made by his counsel of record. In this case, the concession purported to confer jurisdiction on the court where none existed. The prosecuting attorney never raised the motion and confessed judgment despite its filing. Under these circumstances, the circuit court could hardly be expected to note the filing of the motion to dismiss. The tremendous press of daily business prevents the circuit court from checking the time clock of every document in the court file and determining if there are pending motions that have not been set for hearing. The court in the normal case is not required nor expected to rule on an unnoticed motion. The circuit court's judgment is void, so we remand to the circuit court with instructions that it set aside its judgment and enter an order dismissing Mr. Allen's petition for review.
|