Sparks v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sparks v. Director of Revenue

926 S.W.2d 555, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1332

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 30, 1996

DocketNo. 69537

StatusPublished

This text of 926 S.W.2d 555 (Sparks 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

Sparks v. Director of Revenue, 926 S.W.2d 555, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1332 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the circuit court’s judgment reinstating petitioner’s driving privileges. We remand.

Petitioner’s driving privileges were suspended after he was arrested for driving while intoxicated, § 302.505, RSMo 1994.¹ The suspension was sustained following an administrative hearing, §§ 302.505.2 and 302.530, and he requested a trial de novo, § 302.535. The case was assigned to a traffic court commissioner, who heard the case and reinstated petitioner’s driving privileges. The findings and recommendations of the commissioner were adopted and confirmed by Judge McGhee.

On appeal, Director contends the reinstatement order is without effect because the case was heard by a traffic court commissioner. We agree. This case is controlled by our recent decision in Chamberlain v. Director of Revenue, 921 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). See also State ex rel. Coyle v. O’Toole, 914 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 138-39.

Remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the circuit court’s judgment reinstating petitioner’s driving privileges. We remand.

Petitioner’s driving privileges were suspended after he was arrested for driving while intoxicated, § 302.505, RSMo 1994.¹ The suspension was sustained following an administrative hearing, §§ 302.505.2 and 302.530, and he requested a trial de novo, § 302.535. The case was assigned to a traffic court commissioner, who heard the case and reinstated petitioner’s driving privileges. The findings and recommendations of the commissioner were adopted and confirmed by Judge McGhee.

On appeal, Director contends the reinstatement order is without effect because the case was heard by a traffic court commissioner. We agree. This case is controlled by our recent decision in Chamberlain v. Director of Revenue, 921 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). See also State ex rel. Coyle v. O’Toole, 914 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 138-39.

Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

926 S.W.2d 555, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparks-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack