Parker v. Swope
| Decision Date | 01 March 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 84689.,ED 84689. |
| Citation | 157 S.W.3d 350 |
| Parties | James PARKER, Respondent, v. Sheriff Tim SWOPE and St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney, Appellants, and City of O'Fallon and State Criminal Records Repository, Defendants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Joann Leykam, Office of the St. Charles County Counselor, St. Charles, MO, for Prosecutor & Sheriff of St. Charles County.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, Mark C. Pointek, Washington, MO, for City of O'Fallon.
Richard K. Zerr, St. Charles, MO, for James Parker.
The St. Charles County Sheriff's Department ("the Sheriff") and the St. Charles County Prosecutor ("the Prosecutor") appeal from a judgment in the Circuit Court of St. Charles County granting, in part, expungement of arrest records of James C. Parker ("Parker") pursuant to Section 610.122.1
The Sheriff and the Prosecutor claim on appeal that the trial court erred in granting Parker's expungement as to the City of O'Fallon, the Missouri Highway Patrol and the Criminal Records Repository, in that Section 610.123 recognizes a cause of action for expungement of a single "Record of Arrest" and not for expungement of individual agencies and the affirmative defense of res judicata protects the record of arrest as a whole. They also claim that the trial court erred in granting Parker's expungement as to the City of O'Fallon, the Missouri Highway Patrol and the Criminal Records Repository in that Sections 610.122 and 610.1232 recognize a cause of action for expungement when the criteria set forth in the statute are met, but the court never found that the criteria were met. Instead, the court granted the expungement based on default of the non-appearing agencies. We cannot consider these points, however, because we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The Sheriff and the Prosecutor are not aggrieved parties and therefore lack standing to appeal. We dismiss.
In February 2003, Parker filed a Petition for Expungement of Arrest Records and a cause number was assigned. Parker listed the charge he sought to be expunged as a domestic assault, for which he was arrested in August 2001. Parker requested an expungement of the arrest and all related charges not filed but considered. Parker referenced the case number of the domestic assault arrest and charge he sought to expunge in multiple places. Parker listed as defendants: the Criminal Records Repository, the City of O'Fallon Police Department, the St. Charles County Circuit Court, the Prosecutor, and NCIC-FBI Records. The initial petition did not list the Sheriff as a Defendant, however the Sheriff noted his opposition to the expungement in a motion made by the prosecutor.
On April 15, 2003, the first expungement hearing was held. The Prosecutor and the Sheriff appeared by counsel. The City of O'Fallon appeared by Police Officers Buchanan and Frackelton. Officer Frackelton was the officer at the time of the original incident who prepared the probable cause statement. Parker appeared at that hearing pro se. The court offered Parker a continuance so that Parker could obtain counsel but Parker refused and the hearing was held. The court denied the Petition to Expunge.
In November 2003, Parker re-filed a Petition for Expungement of Arrest Records seeking to expunge the same arrest record as the previous petition. A new cause number was assigned to his petition. He also filed another petition for expungement, which is not part of this appeal.
Parker listed the charge he sought to be expunged as "unlawful use of a weapon — Assault," for which he was arrested on August 30, 2001. The case number of the arrest and charge he sought to expunge was identical to the case referenced in the earlier filed expungement on which the trial judge in the first hearing had already ruled. The affected law enforcement agencies listed as defendants in this second Petition for Expungement were the Criminal Records Repository, the City of O'Fallon Police Department, the St. Charles County Circuit Court, and the Prosecutor. Parker also listed the Missouri Highway Patrol and the Sheriff, who were not parties to the first action.
The Sheriff and the Prosecutor filed a Motion to Dismiss, raising the existence of probable cause for the arrest and further raising the defense of res judicata. The court took judicial notice of the court's file in the first Petition to Expunge. The court granted the Sheriff's and Prosecutor's motion to dismiss. The City of O'Fallon Police Department, the Criminal Records Repository and the Missouri State Highway Patrol failed to appear at the proceedings. Noting their failure to appear, the court granted the petition of expungement as a default judgment against the City of O'Fallon Police Department, the Criminal Records Repository and the Missouri State Highway Patrol. The Prosecutor and Sheriff then filed this appeal.
On appeal, the Sheriff and the Prosecutor contend that the trial court erred in expunging Parker's record as to the City of O'Fallon Police Department, the Criminal Records Repository and the Missouri State Highway Patrol for two different reasons. First, the Sheriff and the Prosecutor contend that the trial court erred in not holding that res judicata precluded a second hearing on the merits. Secondly, they assert that it was error to grant expungement based on default of the non-appearing agencies rather than finding that the criteria of the statute were not met.
Unfortunately, we are unable to examine these arguments because the Sheriff and the Prosecutor lack...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Versatile Management Group v. Finke
...is taken, in order to have a right to appeal and have standing in the appellate court. See, e.g., Section 512.020; Parker v. Swope, 157 S.W.3d 350, 352-3 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). Here, it is the Director who was aggrieved by the decision of the circuit court, and it was the Director who appealed......
-
Meyers v. Johnson
...Thus, a party to a civil action must be "aggrieved" by the judgment below in order to have any right to appeal. Parker v. Swope, 157 S.W.3d 350, 352 (Mo.App.2005); City of Brentwood, 66 S.W.3d at In a civil action like this one involving a dispute about the ownership of property, a party is......
-
T.V.N. v. Mo. State Highway Patrol Criminal Justice Info. Servs.
...[of an arrest record], may appeal the court's decision in the same manner as provided for other civil actions." See Parker v. Swope , 157 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (noting that an order directing expungement of arrest records violates the rights of entities ordered to expunge rec......
-
Medlin v. Rlc., Inc.
...an appeal is not prohibited may take his appeal to any court having appellate jurisdiction from any final judgment.'" Parker v. Swope, 157 S.W.3d 350, 352 (Mo.App. 2005) (quoting § 512.020) (emphasis added). "An aggrieved party is one who suffers from an infringement or denial of legal righ......