S.Y. v. Askren, WD 82451
| Decision Date | 27 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | WD 82451 |
| Citation | 581 S.W.3d 721 |
| Parties | S.Y., Appellant, v. Kenton ASKREN, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
581 S.W.3d 721
S.Y., Appellant,
v.
Kenton ASKREN, et al., Respondents.
WD 82451
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Opinion filed: August 27, 2019
Michael T. Carey, for Appellant.
Kenton G. Askren, for Respondent Kenton Askren.
William Douglas Abele, for Respondents Douglas Abele and Jerry Wolfe.
Gerald M. Jackson, for Respondents Kathy Lloyd and Sandra Karsten.
Before Division One: Cynthia L. Martin, Presiding Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge and Alok Ahuja, Judge
VICTOR C. HOWARD, JUDGE
S.Y. appeals from the circuit court’s judgment denying his petition to expunge his 2003 conviction for unlawful use of drug paraphernalia. He argues that the circuit court erred in its application of section 610.140.5.1 The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions.
Background
On January 23, 2018, S.Y. filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cooper County seeking expungement of a conviction in Cooper County for unlawful use of drug paraphernalia, section 195.233, RSMo 2000, a class A misdemeanor. On March 4, 2003, S.Y. pled guilty to the offense, and a $50 fine was imposed, which he paid that day.
The Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) filed an answer and a motion to dismiss. In its motion, the MSHP alleged that S.Y. was found guilty of class A misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, section 195.233, RSMo 2000, on May 23, 2003, in the Associate Division of the Johnson County Circuit Court. In that
case, S.Y. pled guilty to the offense and received a suspended imposition of sentence with two years' probation, which he successfully completed in 2005. The MSHP argued that S.Y. failed to satisfy the criteria in section 610.140.5(2) for expungement of the Cooper County conviction because he had been found guilty of another misdemeanor during the three-year period after completion of the authorized disposition imposed for the conviction he sought to expunge. The trial court agreed and entered its judgment on November 30, 2018, granting the MSHP’s motion to dismiss and denying the petition. This appeal by S.Y. followed.
Standard of Review
In this court-tried case, the judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. W.C.H. v. State , 546 S.W.3d 612, 614 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) ). The trial court’s application of statutory requirements is a question of law rather than fact and is reviewed de novo. Id.
Analysis
In his sole point on appeal, S.Y. contends that the circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G.E.D. v. Mo. State Highway Patrol
...trial court’s application of statutory requirements is a question of law rather than fact and is reviewed de novo. S.Y. v. Askren , 581 S.W.3d 721, 722 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019).Analysis In MSHP’s sole point, it argues that "the trial court erred in granting expungement" in that "the trial court......
-
S.E.M. v. St. Louis Cnty.
...statute." See R.G. v. Missouri State Highway Patrol , 580 S.W.3d 38, 39-42, 41 n.3 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) and S.Y. v. Askren , 581 S.W.3d 721, 721-23, 722 n.2 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (both similarly finding with respect to a pre-August 2018 version of section 610.140.5 (1) and referencing the Au......
-
W.S. v. Jackson Cnty. Prosecutor
...weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares the law. Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) ; S.Y. v. Askren , 581 S.W.3d 721, 722 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). The circuit court's statutory interpretations are a question of law to be reviewed de novo. S.Y. , 581 S.W.3d at 722.......
-
J.A. v. Mo. Dep't of Corr.
...weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares the law. Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) ; S.Y. v. Askren , 581 S.W.3d 721, 722 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). The circuit court's statutory interpretations are a question of law to be reviewed de novo. S.Y. , 581 S.W.3d at 722.......