 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Yanuzzi v. Director of Revenue6/8/1999
fore, the circuit court was never vested with subject matter jurisdiction and its judgment of June 19th was null and void. Moreover, the court erred in concluding Director had waived the issue by confessing judgment. As noted in Rule 55.27(g)(3), whenever it appears the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, "the court shall dismiss the action." Accordingly, the circuit court abused its discretion in failing to grant Director's Rule 74.06(b) motion.
Driver also contends the confession of the petition for review was part of a plea agreement and he pleaded guilty to the underlying criminal charge in this case in return for the confession of the petition. However, nothing in the record before us in this matter shows any evidence of a plea agreement. In light of the paucity of the record in this case, we do not address Driver's contention further.
We do note, however, that the fact pattern of the current case is a recurring one. Pelloquin v. Director of Revenue, 894 S.W. 2d 235 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995), Suglio v. Director of Revenue, 879 S.W. 2d 753 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994), Johnson v. Director of Revenue, 879 S.W. 2d 754 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994), Gunn v. Director of Revenue, 876 S.W. 2d 42 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994), Evans v. Director of Revenue, 871 S.W. 2d 90 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994), Klinedinst v. Director of Revenue, 883 S.W. 2d 556 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994), Cross v. Director of Revenue, 861 S.W. 2d 214 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). The driver, by an untimely petition for review, contests administrative action taken against him by the Director of Revenue. The prosecuting attorney, representing the Director, confesses judgment in the petition for review of the administrative action. Such confession of judgment may be in aid of a related plea agreement. The Director, dissatisfied with the confession of judgment in an untimely filed petition for review, contests the court's jurisdiction to enter the judgment. We appear to have an administrative system that regularly countenances one attorney representing the Director of Revenue challenging an agreement reached weeks earlier by another attorney for the Director. One might understandably question whether this fosters respect for the administration of Justice. Prosecuting attorneys and the Director of Revenue would do well to coordinate their administrative efforts to avoid this anomaly. Also, if such confession of judgment is in furtherance of a related plea agreement, we will avoid the inJustice of a defendant being deprived of the benefit of the bargain he struck.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded with directions for the trial court to grant Director's Rule 74.06(b) motion, set aside the June 19th judgment and dismiss Driver's petition for review. Driver's motion for sanctions for frivolous appeal is denied.
Page 1 2 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|