Home/Missouri Court of Appeals/Chamberlain v. State, Director of Revenue

Chamberlain v. State, Director of Revenue

921 S.W.2d 138, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 731, 1996 WL 207564
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 30, 1996
DocketNo. 68964
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 921 S.W.2d 138 (Chamberlain v. State, 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
Chamberlain v. State, Director of Revenue, 921 S.W.2d 138, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 731, 1996 WL 207564 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

KAROHL, Judge.

The Director of Revenue (DOR) attempts to appeal an order reinstating David Allen Chamberlain’s driving privileges pursuant to § 302.500 et seq. RSMo 1994.1

Chamberlain’s driving license was suspended as a result of allegedly driving under the influence with a blood alcohol level of .10. He requested an administrative hearing under § 302.505, which sustained the suspension. He petitioned for a trial de novo hearing under § 302.535. The case was assigned to a traffic court commissioner. The traffic court commissioner heard the ease and found Chamberlain’s driving privileges should be reinstated. The commissioner found the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest Chamberlain, but he did not have a blood alcohol concentration of .10 or more.

Before addressing the issues on appeal, we have an affirmative duty to determine whether we have jurisdiction. Webster v. City of Cool Valley, 838 S.W.2d 520 (Mo.App.E.D.1992).

We find the order is without legal effect. Section 302.500 et seq. provides a comprehensive procedure to review a suspension or revocation of a drivers’ license. Under § 302.535.1, the petition for trial de novo shall be filed in the circuit court, heard and [139]*139decided by a circuit judge or an associate circuit judge, not a traffic court judge or commissioner. State of Missouri ex rel. Coyle v. O’Toole, 914 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). Also, a traffic court commissioner is not authorized by § 479.500 to hear a drivers’ license suspension or revocation trial de novo. Id.

Chamberlain’s petition remains pending in the circuit court. We remand for a hearing.

REINHARD, P.J., and GRIMM, J., concur.

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

Related

Sooch v. Director of Revenue
105 S.W.3d 546 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2003)
Kuhlman v. Director of Revenue
943 S.W.2d 246 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1997)
Patrick v. Director of Revenue
938 S.W.2d 951 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1997)
Battle v. Director of Revenue, State
930 S.W.2d 533 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
Klipsch v. Lohman
931 S.W.2d 197 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
Snead v. Director of Revenue
926 S.W.2d 562 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
Sparks v. Director of Revenue
926 S.W.2d 555 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
Adlon v. Director of Revenue
925 S.W.2d 502 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
Gantz v. Director of Revenue
921 S.W.2d 156 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
McDevitt v. Director of Revenue
921 S.W.2d 158 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
921 S.W.2d 138, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 731, 1996 WL 207564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chamberlain-v-state-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1996.