 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stiens v. Director of Revenue5/2/2000
consideration of all elements essential to the decision as to whether a license to operate a vehicle may be suspended are considered." Jarvis, 804 S.W.2d at 24. "Due process contemplates the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner." Moore v. Board of Educ., 836 S.W.2d 943, 948 (Mo. banc 1992). Due process also requires that in order to deprive a person of a property interest, the government must give notice and provide an opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. Id. Id.
Applying these principles, the Missouri Supreme Court held that a meaningful opportunity for a hearing in the circuit court requires that a petitioner have a reasonable time in which to challenge the findings of a traffic commissioner before an article V judge. Dabin, 9 S.W.3d at 615. It further held that a circuit judge's entry of a judgment on the same day as the commissioner makes findings and recommendations does not provide a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Id.
It is clear that petitioner was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the trial de novo because, as in Dabin, the circuit court entered judgment on the same day that the commissioner entered her findings and recommendations.
The Director responds that this case differs from Dabin in that, after the judgment was rendered, petitioner filed a motion for new trial and alternative motion for judgment and, after the commissioner recommended that the motion be denied, nine days elapsed before the circuit judge adopted the commissioner's findings and recommendations. The Director argues that petitioner's objections to the commissioner's findings were reviewed by the Article V judge when the judge considered the motion for new trial. Alternatively, the Director argues that, if this procedure did not give petitioner a meaningful opportunity to be heard, then this case should be reversed and remanded under Dabin.
Due process required that petitioner be given the opportunity to file a motion for hearing by an Article V judge and make his challenges to the commissioner's findings as part of the trial de novo process before the Article V judge entered judgment against him. Dabin, 9 S.W.3d at 615. Petitioner was denied due process when the Article V judge entered judgment against him on the same day that the commissioner made her findings and recommendations.
The Article V judge's consideration and denial of the motion for new trial and alternative motion for judgment does not take this case outside of Dabin. First, in the two cases decided by Dabin, the presiding judge denied motions after entry of judgment for trial de novo and/or rehearing by an Article V judge. The Supreme Court did not consider the proceedings on these post-judgment motions on the question of whether the petitioners in those cases had a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Second, while a procedural due process violation may be cured by the grant of a new trial, in this case the circuit court denied the motion for new trial. We cannot say that, by considering and denying the motion for new trial, the circuit court accorded petitioner an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner on the issues raised by the trial de novo.
Because we are reversing and remanding this case, it is unnecessary to address petitioner's remaining claims.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with those set out in Dabin v. Director of Revenue, 9 S.W.3d 610 (Mo. banc 2000).
|