Buehler v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Buehler v. Director of Revenue

716 S.W.2d 310, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 4382

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 15, 1986

DocketNo. WD 37390

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 716 S.W.2d 310 (Buehler v. Director of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buehler v. Director of Revenue, 716 S.W.2d 310, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 4382 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

KENNEDY, Presiding Judge.

Respondent Buehler’s driving privileges were revoked for one year by the Director of Revenue on the basis of the assessment of 12 points against his driving record. Sec. 302.304.6, RSMo Supp.1984. The 12 points were assessed by reason of a May 1, 1985, conviction of driving while intoxicated.¹ Treating the May 1, 1985, conviction as a “first conviction of driving while in an intoxicated condition.... after a previous conviction of driving with a blood alcohol content of ten hundredths of one percent”, the Director assessed 12 points, § 302.302.-1(8), RSMo Supp.1984, and, as noted above, revoked his driving privileges for one year. Sec. 302.304.6, RSMo Supp.1984.

The circuit court upon judicial review, § 302.311, RSMo 1978, reversed the Director’s decision. We reverse the judgment and reinstate the Director’s order of revocation.

Respondent admits an excessive blood alcohol content conviction² on November 21, 1977. He argues, though, that since he had no legal counsel in connection with that conviction, it may not be used as a second [311]*311alcohol related driving conviction in order to assess 12 points — that it must be disregarded and the May 1, 1985, conviction treated as a first conviction. The acceptance of respondent’s argument would result in the assessment of 8 points, § 302.-302.1(7), RSMo Supp.1984, and the loss of his driving privileges for only 30 days, § 302.304.4, RSMo Supp.1984.

For the proposition that the uncounseled earlier conviction may not be used to increase the number of points to be assessed upon the second conviction, respondent cites Baldosar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980). That case held that an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction, in violation of defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, could not be used to enhance punishment, i.e., by adding to the length of a defendant’s term of incarceration upon a subsequent conviction.

The case does not, however, go as far as respondent contends. It does not prevent the use of such earlier uncounseled conviction to increase civil penalties or sanctions, which do not involve incarceration. It has been so held in White v. King, 700 S.W.2d 152, 155-56 (Mo.App.1985), decided by this court since the trial court’s decision in the present case.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the revocation order of the Director of Revenue is reinstated.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KENNEDY, Presiding Judge.

Respondent Buehler’s driving privileges were revoked for one year by the Director of Revenue on the basis of the assessment of 12 points against his driving record. Sec. 302.304.6, RSMo Supp.1984. The 12 points were assessed by reason of a May 1, 1985, conviction of driving while intoxicated.¹ Treating the May 1, 1985, conviction as a “first conviction of driving while in an intoxicated condition.... after a previous conviction of driving with a blood alcohol content of ten hundredths of one percent”, the Director assessed 12 points, § 302.302.-1(8), RSMo Supp.1984, and, as noted above, revoked his driving privileges for one year. Sec. 302.304.6, RSMo Supp.1984.

The circuit court upon judicial review, § 302.311, RSMo 1978, reversed the Director’s decision. We reverse the judgment and reinstate the Director’s order of revocation.

Respondent admits an excessive blood alcohol content conviction² on November 21, 1977. He argues, though, that since he had no legal counsel in connection with that conviction, it may not be used as a second [311]*311alcohol related driving conviction in order to assess 12 points — that it must be disregarded and the May 1, 1985, conviction treated as a first conviction. The acceptance of respondent’s argument would result in the assessment of 8 points, § 302.-302.1(7), RSMo Supp.1984, and the loss of his driving privileges for only 30 days, § 302.304.4, RSMo Supp.1984.

For the proposition that the uncounseled earlier conviction may not be used to increase the number of points to be assessed upon the second conviction, respondent cites Baldosar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980). That case held that an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction, in violation of defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, could not be used to enhance punishment, i.e., by adding to the length of a defendant’s term of incarceration upon a subsequent conviction.

The case does not, however, go as far as respondent contends. It does not prevent the use of such earlier uncounseled conviction to increase civil penalties or sanctions, which do not involve incarceration. It has been so held in White v. King, 700 S.W.2d 152, 155-56 (Mo.App.1985), decided by this court since the trial court’s decision in the present case.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the revocation order of the Director of Revenue is reinstated.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

716 S.W.2d 310, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 4382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buehler-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack