 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rundquist v. Director of Revenue12/11/2001
Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Robert S. Cohen
Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Draper III, P.J., and Russell, J., concur.
Opinion:
The Director of Revenue (Director), State of Missouri, appeals from the trial court's judgment ordering the Department of Revenue to remove a Kentucky driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) conviction from Jeffrey Rundquist's (Driver's) driving record and reinstating his driving eligibility. We reverse and remand.
Driver was convicted of DUI on July 18, 1995, in Illinois. Driver was convicted of DUI on October 31, 1995, in Kentucky. Driver was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) on May 1, 1996, in Missouri. On June 21, 2000, in response to Driver's application for a driver's license, the Department of Revenue notified Driver that he was ineligible to receive a driver's license because of the two DUI and one DWI convictions. Driver filed a petition for review of the decision claiming the Kentucky and Illinois DUI convictions did not comply with the Missouri Driver License Compact in Section 302.600, RSMo 1994. Specifically, Driver alleged fourteen technical defects in both conviction reports, and claimed Section 302.600 mandated removal of the convictions and resulting points from his driving record.
At trial Driver argued that the Kentucky DUI conviction should be removed from his driving record because the conviction report failed to 1) identify the Kentucky statute, code, or ordinance violated, and 2) indicate whether Driver pled guilty or was found guilty of the charged offense. Driver argued that Section 302.600, Article III, which sets forth the information required to be provided in out-of-state conviction reports, is mandatory.
Driver did not address any alleged problems with the Illinois or Missouri convictions. The trial court found for Driver, setting aside Director's denial of Driver's license application, because "the Kentucky DUI conviction . . . does not comply with the Missouri Compact Agreement in that specific required information is not included." Additionally, the trial court ordered the Department of Revenue to remove the Kentucky DUI conviction from Driver's driving record. Director appeals from that judgment.
When a trial court reinstates a driver's driving license after it has been revoked or suspended, the appellate court will affirm the judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or the trial court erroneously declared or applied the law. Wampler v. Director of Revenue, 48 S.W.3d 32, 34 (Mo. banc 2001).
In her first point, Director claims the trial court erred in setting aside the denial of Driver's driver's license application because it erroneously applied Section 302.600 in that the guidelines of Section 302.600, Article III, are directory rather than mandatory. Director further contends Driver's previous convictions provided a sufficient basis for Director to exercise her discretion in denying Driver's application on the grounds that he is an unsafe driver.
Section 302.600, Article III, requires the licensing authority of any state who is a party to the Driver License Compact to report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee. Such report shall clearly identify the person convicted; describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code or ordinance violated; identify the court in which action was taken; indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered, or whether the conviction was a result
Page 1 2 3 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|