 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wampler v. Director of Revenue8/29/2000
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Andrew County, Hon. Bill Roberts
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED.
Ellis and Stith, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
The Director of Revenue appeals from the trial court's judgment setting aside the Director's one-year revocation of Dwight R. Wampler's driving privilege and its ten-year denial of his driving privilege, and reinstating his driving privilege. The Director's sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in setting aside its actions because it was not required to present any evidence during the hearing to prove the grounds for its actions in that the court was required to review the administrative record filed with it several months before the hearing, which established that Wampler had accumulated enough points to earn a one-year revocation and that he had been convicted of driving while intoxicated on three separate occasions requiring the ten-year denial of his driving privilege, and Wampler presented no contrary evidence during the hearing.
We affirm.
Facts
On February 10, 1999, the Director of Revenue issued a notice to Dwight R. Wampler revoking his driving privilege for one year, effective March 14, 1999, because of an accumulation of points resulting from two traffic convictions for speeding and driving while intoxicated. The Director's notice stated that the Department received and processed the speeding conviction on March 21, 1997, and the DWI conviction on February 9, 1999.
Also on February 10, 1999, the Director issued a ten-year denial of Wampler's driving privilege, effective March 14, 1999, pursuant to section 302.060(9), because he had three convictions for driving while intoxicated. Wampler was convicted for driving while intoxicated on January 13, 1999, in the City of Savannah municipal court, and on December 21, 1988 and October 19, 1983, in Andrew County Circuit Court.
On March 12, 1999, Wampler filed a petition for review in Andrew County Circuit Court contesting the Director's action, under section 302.311. The Director's counsel filed an answer to that petition on April 1, 1999. Along with the answer, a certified copy of the Director's administrative records, which included Wampler's Missouri Driver Record and court records relating to Wampler's three DWI convictions, was filed with the trial court. Wampler filed a response/answer, in which he requested that the Director's allegations regarding his alleged DWI history be stricken "because said allegations are conclusions of law and/or are not in proper form."
On April 26, 1999, the trial court held a hearing on Wampler's petition for review. Although the assistant prosecuting attorney, who is required to represent the Director in actions under section 302.311, appeared at the hearing, he presented no evidence on behalf of the Director. Wampler offered no evidence of his own and his attorney merely asked the court to enter an order setting aside the Director's actions. The trial court indicated that it would grant Wampler's request because it believed that the Director was under an obligation to "go forward," but was unable to do so. The trial court advised Wampler that he had "dodged the bullet" and that he had prevailed only because the Director had not presented any evidence at the hearing. The trial court also told Wampler that it was required to "turn loose," but that the court would not have done so if there had been any evidence, and it again reminded Wampler that he had "dodged the bullet." The trial court later entered a written judgment setting aside the Director's actions against Wampler's driving privilege because the Director had failed to present any evidence du
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|