City of Kansas City v. Long

244 S.W.3d 765, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 77, 2008 WL 169641
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 22, 2008
DocketWD 67734, WD 67735
StatusPublished

This text of 244 S.W.3d 765 (City of Kansas City v. Long) 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
City of Kansas City v. Long, 244 S.W.3d 765, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 77, 2008 WL 169641 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

LISA WHITE HARDWICK, Judge.

Kelly Long appeals from the circuit court’s dismissal of her application for trial de novo on two Kansas City ordinance violations. The circuit court determined that Long was not entitled to trial de novo under Section 479.200, RSMo 2000, because she stipulated to the City’s evidence and, therefore, was never “tried” in municipal court. For reasons explained herein, we reverse the dismissal and remand the case for a trial de novo.

Long was charged with violating Kansas City ordinances by leaving the scene of an accident and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. On May 10, 2006, Long appeared for trial in Kansas City Municipal Court. She pled not guilty to the charges but stipulated to the City’s evidence, including the anticipated testimony of the arresting police officer and all witnesses. In the common parlance of municipal court, this practice is known as a “technical not guilty” plea or “TNG.” The municipal court found Long guilty on both charges and assessed fines of $250 for leaving the accident scene and $400 for driving while intoxicated.

Long filed a timely application for a trial de novo in the Circuit Court of Jackson County. At a hearing on the application, the circuit court determined no trial had occurred in the municipal court because Long entered a technical not guilty plea on a stipulated record. The circuit court thereupon dismissed the application for trial de novo, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Section 479.200.

In this appeal, Long contends the circuit court incorrectly applied Section 479.200 in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed on the application for trial novo. The City filed a responsive brief but does not dispute the allegations of error. Both parties seek clarification as to whether a municipal court defendant who is convicted upon a stipulated record has been “tried” and is thereby entitled to a trial de novo under Section 479.200. This same issue was raised and fully addressed in the companion of case of City of Kansas City, Missouri v. Dudley, 244 S.W.3d 762 (Mo.App., 2008). Based upon our analysis and decision in Dudley, we conclude that a trial occurred in municipal court because Long stipulated to the City’s evidence and the municipal judge found Long guilty based on the evidence presented. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 479.200 were met, and the circuit court erred in dismissing Long’s application for trial de novo.

The judgment of dismissal is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for a trial de novo on the ordinance violations.

All concur.

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

Related

City of Kansas City v. Dudley
244 S.W.3d 762 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
244 S.W.3d 765, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 77, 2008 WL 169641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-kansas-city-v-long-moctapp-2008.