 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sanders v. Director of Revenue5/25/1999
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Grace Nichols
Citation:
Opinion Vote: REVERSED. Hoff, P.J., and Russell, J., concur.
Opinion:
Appellant, Director of Revenue ("Director"), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County granting respondent, Mark A. Sanders ("driver"), limited driving privileges under RSMo section 302.309.3(6). We reverse.
On August 11, 1992, Director issued a ten-year denial of driver's driving privilege because of multiple convictions for driving while intoxicated. On August 1, 1997, driver appealed Director's denial of his request for a limited driving privilege and requested that the circuit court order Director to issue a limited driving privilege to him. When driver filed said appeal, Director had twice revoked driver's driving privilege -- on September 6, 1991 and on May 24, 1984 -- for violating RSMo section 577.041 by refusing to take a chemical test. On April 2, 1998, the circuit court issued a judgment granting driver a limited driving privilege. Director appeals from that decision.
In Director's sole point relied on, Director argues that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant driver a limited driving privilege under RSMo section 302.309.3(6)(a), because he was otherwise ineligible for a limited driving privilege under RSMo section 302.309.3(5)(f) and Hagan v. Director of Revenue, 968 S.W.2d 704 (Mo.banc 1998), in that driver had more than once violated RSMo section 577.041 by refusing a chemical test. We agree with Director.
The trial court's decision will be affirmed unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or misstates or misapplies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). A circuit court does not have jurisdiction to grant limited driving privileges to a person who is statutorily ineligible to receive them. Richard v. Director of Revenue, 869 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Mo.App.E.D. 1994). If the circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it "may take no action other than to exercise its power to dismiss the action." Beach v. Director of Revenue, 934 S.W.2d 315, 318 (Mo.App.W.D. 1996). "Any other action taken by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is null and void." Id.
In pertinent part, RSMo section 302.309.3(5) states:
Except as provided in subdivision (6) of this subsection, no person is eligible to receive hardship driving privilege whose license has been suspended or revoked for the following reasons:
(f) Violation more than once of the provisions of section 577.041, RSMo, or a similar implied consent law of any other state[.]
Additionally, RSMo section 302.309.3(6)(a), as amended in 1996, provides in pertinent part:
"Provided that pursuant to the provisions of this section, the applicant is not otherwise ineligible for a limited driving privilege, a circuit court or the director may, in the manner prescribed in this subsection, allow a person who has had such person's license to operate a motor vehicle revoked where that person cannot obtain a new license for a period of ten years, as prescribed in subdivision (9) of section 302.060, to apply for limited driving privileges pursuant to this subsection if such person has served at least three years of such disqualification or revocation. . . ." (Emphasized language was added by the 1996 amendment.)
In Hagan, Director had issued a ten-year deni
Page 1 2 3 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|