Lillie v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lillie v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI

139 S.W.3d 222, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1061, 2004 WL 1652701

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 26, 2004

Docket26176

StatusPublished

This text of 139 S.W.3d 222 (Lillie v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI) 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

Lillie v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, 139 S.W.3d 222, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1061, 2004 WL 1652701 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Director of Revenue (“Director”) appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of Phelps County ordering the Director to reinstate respondent’s license to operate a motor vehicle, which had been revoked pursuant to § 577.041 RSMo. We reverse and remand.

The Director has filed a motion herein asking this court to remand this case to the trial court for a hearing on the record. The motion avers that the prosecuting attorney who represented the Director in the trial court requested that a record be made of the hearing on respondent’s petition for review. The motion further avers that, at the hearing, the prosecuting attorney called two witnesses on behalf of Director. We observe that both the trial court’s judgment and the trial court’s docket sheet reflect that evidence was presented at the hearing. Even so, in response to the Director’s request for preparation of the hearing transcript, the circuit clerk’s office stated that “[tjhere was no testimony taken on record so there is no transcript available.” This court gave respondent an opportunity to show cause why the Director’s motion for remand should not be granted, but respondent has not replied.

We note that the trial court’s judgment in this case includes the following findings:

There is no evidence to show that Applicant Jonathan Lillie was ever stopped or arrested; and

There are ... insufficient grounds to prove that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that Applicant was driving a motor vehicle in an intoxicated or drugged condition.

Clearly, a record of the evidence adduced at the hearing is necessary to review any alleged error in regard to these findings. See Hardin v. Director of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Mo.App.1999). “Under these circumstances, the correct procedure is to reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.” Id. See also Henzlik v. Director of Revenue, 951 S.W.2d 760 (Mo.App.1997); Wolansky v. Director of Revenue, 936 S.W.2d 578 (Mo.App.1996).

The judgment is reversed. The case is remanded for new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Director of Revenue (“Director”) appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of Phelps County ordering the Director to reinstate respondent’s license to operate a motor vehicle, which had been revoked pursuant to § 577.041 RSMo. We reverse and remand.

The Director has filed a motion herein asking this court to remand this case to the trial court for a hearing on the record. The motion avers that the prosecuting attorney who represented the Director in the trial court requested that a record be made of the hearing on respondent’s petition for review. The motion further avers that, at the hearing, the prosecuting attorney called two witnesses on behalf of Director. We observe that both the trial court’s judgment and the trial court’s docket sheet reflect that evidence was presented at the hearing. Even so, in response to the Director’s request for preparation of the hearing transcript, the circuit clerk’s office stated that “[tjhere was no testimony taken on record so there is no transcript available.” This court gave respondent an opportunity to show cause why the Director’s motion for remand should not be granted, but respondent has not replied.

We note that the trial court’s judgment in this case includes the following findings:

There is no evidence to show that Applicant Jonathan Lillie was ever stopped or arrested; and

There are ... insufficient grounds to prove that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that Applicant was driving a motor vehicle in an intoxicated or drugged condition.

Clearly, a record of the evidence adduced at the hearing is necessary to review any alleged error in regard to these findings. See Hardin v. Director of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Mo.App.1999). “Under these circumstances, the correct procedure is to reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.” Id. See also Henzlik v. Director of Revenue, 951 S.W.2d 760 (Mo.App.1997); Wolansky v. Director of Revenue, 936 S.W.2d 578 (Mo.App.1996).

The judgment is reversed. The case is remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.W.3d 222, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1061, 2004 WL 1652701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lillie-v-director-of-revenue-state-of-missouri-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack