 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson v. Director of Revenue11/20/2000
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Butler County, Hon. John Bloodworth, Judge
John E. Parrish Presiding Judge
Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Shrum and Montgomery, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
This is an appeal by the Director of Revenue (the director) of a judgment denying the director's claim that an earlier judgment was void. The earlier judgment directs the Department of Revenue to remove from the driving record and driving license of David Robinson (petitioner) any reference to an administrative suspension that resulted from an arrest during which petitioner was determined to have driven an automobile when he had an excessive blood alcohol content. See section 302.505. The challenged judgment directed that "said administrative suspension shall be stricken and held void." This court reverses and remands with directions.
Petitioner is a Tennessee resident. He was arrested in Butler County, Missouri, May 15, 1998, for driving while intoxicated (DWI). See section 577.010, RSMo 1994. He was administered a breath test that showed he had blood alcohol content of .177 %. On June 10, 1999, petitioner filed the action that produced this appeal in the Circuit Court of Butler County. He asserted that following his DWI arrest, the Missouri Department of Revenue assigned him a Missouri driver's license number and entered an alcohol suspension effective May 31, 1998; that as a result he would not be allowed to renew his Tennessee license without complying with various special requirements. Petitioner claimed Tennessee would require him to comply "with a SATOP program, SR-22 and insurance" in order to renew his license.
The legal file component of the record on appeal shows petitioner's case was set for trial August 11, 1999, in the Associate Circuit Judge Division of the Circuit Court of Butler County. The trial court's docket sheet reflects the case was called on that date and " tipulation filed." It shows judgment entered that date.
The legal file includes a copy of a stipulation signed by the prosecuting attorney of Butler County and by petitioner's attorney. It consists of an introductory paragraph and three numbered paragraphs:
Come now the parties, by and through their attorneys, and hereby stipulate that the matters, things and allegations contained in the Petitioner's Petition are true in that,
1. The Petitioner was never afforded a right to contest the BA test.
2. That the Petitioner is a resident of the State of Tennessee and has completed all requirements imposed by the Court attendant to his plea of guilty to the charge of driving while intoxicated.
3. It is further stipulated that law enforcement officers failed to follow the proper procedures as outlined by the statutes and the Missouri Health Department Rules and as such, that the Petitioner's results of the breathalyzer were inaccurate and unreliable.
The judgment recites, " y Stipulation the Court finds the matters, things and allegations contained in Petitioner's Petition are true." It directs the Department of Revenue to remove "any reference to an administrative suspension as a result of a blood alcohol level" from petitioner's driving record and driver's license and directs and declares the administrative suspension "stricken and held void."
On December 8, 1999, the director filed a motion to set aside the August 11, 1999, judgment. The motion was filed pursuant to Rule 74.06. The trial court entered judgment February 20, 2000, denying the motion.
The director presents one point rel
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|