T.V.N. v. Mo. State Highway Patrol Criminal Justice Info. Servs.

• Decision Date: 12 November 2019
• Docket Number: WD 82341
• Citation: 592 S.W.3d 74
• Parties: T.V.N., Respondent, v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

592 S.W.3d 74

T.V.N., Respondent,

v.MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES, Appellant.

WD 82341

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: November 12, 2019

Application for Transfer Denied February 18, 2020

Andrew D. Popplewell and John W. Rogers, Columbia, MO, for respondent.

Marie C. Dwyer, Jefferson City, MO, for appellant.

Before Division One: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge and Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

The Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Justice Information Services ("Central Repository") appeals from a judgment expunging T.N.'s¹ 2016 arrest record pursuant to section 610.122.² The Central Repository argues that because T.N. had a 2011 speeding conviction, he was statutorily ineligible for expungement of the arrest record, even though the speeding conviction had been expunged pursuant to section 610.140. Because expungement of T.N.'s 2011 speeding conviction pursuant to section 610.140 restored him to the status he occupied prior to the conviction as if such conviction had never taken place, it was not legally erroneous to expunge T.N.'s 2016 arrest record. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

On July 23, 2018, T.N. petitioned the trial court to expunge an arrest record generated after T.N. was accused of leaving the scene of an accident on February 5, 2016. The Central Repository opposed the petition.

At a hearing on the petition, T.N. testified that although he was arrested on February 5, 2016, no charges were ever filed in the matter. T.N. acknowledged that he had been convicted of a misdemeanor speeding charge in April 2011. The speeding conviction was expunged, however, shortly before T.N. filed the petition to expunge his 2016 arrest record.

The trial court entered a judgment and order on October 31, 2018, expunging the 2016 arrest record ("Judgment"). The Judgment found that T.N. had not been convicted of any prior or subsequent misdemeanors or felonies. The Central Repository filed this timely appeal.

Standard of Review

We review the trial court's Judgment to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The trial court's construction and application of statutory requirements is a question of law we review de novo. W.C.H. v. State , 546 S.W.3d 612, 614 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018).

Justiciability of Appeal

Before addressing the merits of the Central Repository's appeal, we are required to address T.N.'s motion to dismiss, which argues that the Central Repository is not aggrieved by the Judgment and has no right of appeal under section 512.020. Section 512.020 affords the right of appeal to "[a]ny party to a suit aggrieved by any judgment of any trial court in any civil cause...." "A party who has not been aggrieved by a judgment has no right or standing to appeal." Jackson Cty. Bd. of Election Comm'rs v. Paluka , 13 S.W.3d 684, 687 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (citation omitted).

"Courts have a duty to determine if a party has standing prior to addressing the substantive issues of the case." CACH, LLC v. Askew , 358 S.W.3d 58, 61 (Mo. banc 2012). " ‘Because standing is a question of law, review of the issue on appeal is de novo.’ " Schweich v. Nixon , 408 S.W.3d 769, 773 (Mo. banc 2013) (quoting CACH, 358 S.W.3d at 61 ). " ‘Standing requires that a party have a personal stake arising from a threatened or actual injury.’ " Id. at 774 (quoting State ex rel. Williams v. Mauer , 722 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Mo. banc 1986) ); see also CACH , 358 S.W.3d at 61 ("A party has standing to sue when it has a ‘justiciable interest in the subject matter of the action.’ ") (quoting Garrison v. Schmicke , 354 Mo. 1185, 193 S.W.2d 614, 615 (Mo. 1946) ). "A party establishes standing, therefore, by showing that it has ‘some legally protectable interest in the litigation so as to be directly and adversely affected by its outcome.’ " Schweich , 408 S.W.3d at 775 (quoting Mo. State Med. Ass'n v. State , 256 S.W.3d 85, 87 (Mo. banc 2008) ); see also Mo. Soybean Ass'n v. Mo. Clean Water Comm'n , 102 S.W.3d 10, 25 (Mo. banc 2003) (holding that to establish standing, a party must demonstrate " ‘a pecuniary or personal interest directly at issue and subject to immediate or prospective consequential relief’ " (quoting Northgate Apartments, L.P. v. City of North Kansas Cit y, 45 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) )). "[A]s used in section 512.020, ‘aggrieved’ means ‘suffering from an infringement or denial of legal rights.’ "

Jackson Cty. Bd. of Election Comm'rs , 13 S.W.3d at 687-88 (quoting Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. (GEICO) v. Clenny , 752 S.W.2d 66, 68 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988) (other citation omitted)).

The Central Repository is a "division within the Missouri state highway patrol responsible for compiling and disseminating complete and accurate criminal history records." Section 43.500(2). "Criminal history record information" is defined to include "information collected by criminal justice agencies on individuals consisting of identifiable descriptions and notations of arrests, detentions, indictments, informations, or other formal criminal charges, and any disposition arising therefrom, sentencing, correctional supervision, and release." Section 43.500(5). The stated purpose for the Central Repository is described in section 43.503.1:

For the purpose of maintaining complete and accurate criminal history record information, all police officers of this state, the clerk of each court, the department of corrections, the sheriff of each county, the chief law enforcement official of a city not within a county and the prosecuting attorney of each county or the circuit attorney of a city not within a county shall submit certain criminal arrest, charge, and disposition information to the central repository for filing without undue delay in the form and manner required by sections 43.500 to 43.543.

Other provisions in sections 43.500 to 43.543 address the Central Repository's obligation to disseminate collected and maintained criminal history record information to authorized persons. See, e.g. , sections 43.507, 43.531, and 43.532. The Central Repository thus has an interest in ensuring that the criminal history record information it maintains is complete and accurate.

T.N. does not contest that the Central Repository has an interest in ensuring that the criminal history record information it maintains is complete and accurate. However, T.N. argues that because expungement of an arrest record requires a court to make a determination that an arrest was based on false information, the Central Repository is neither aggrieved nor prejudiced by a judgment that expunges the arrest record. Section 610.122.1(1). T.N. argues that the Central Repository has no personal or property interest in maintaining false records.

T.N.'s argument ignores that demonstrating an arrest was based on false information is but one of several eligibility requirements a petitioner must establish to secure a judgment expunging an arrest record. Section 610.122. Here, the Central Repository is challenging whether T.N. satisfied the eligibility requirement of no prior or subsequent misdemeanor or felony convictions.

Moreover, T.N.'s argument ignores that the Central Repository is a required party in an action seeking to expunge an arrest record. Section 610.123.2 requires a petition seeking to expunge an arrest record to "name as defendants all ... central state depositories of criminal records or others who the petitioner has reason to believe may possess the records subject to expungement." Section 610.123.2 thus reflects the General Assembly's recognition that the Central Repository is aggrieved by a judgment expunging an arrest. This conclusion is consistent with section 610.124.2 which expressly provides that "[a]ny petitioner, or agency protesting the expungement [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 records, including the Central Repository, authorizing an appeal).

We find that the Central Repository is aggrieved by a judgment expunging an arrest record, and has standing to appeal pursuant to section 512.020. An order directing the Central Repository to destroy arrest records implicates the Central Repository's statutory responsibility to compile and disseminate complete and accurate criminal history records, and thus violates the direct legal interests of the Central Repository which " ‘has an interest in vindicating and upholding its official acts and procedures.’ " Jackson Cty. Bd. of Election Comm'rs , 13 S.W.3d at 688 (quoting Mo. Health Facilities Review Comm. v. Admin. Hearing Comm'n , 700 S.W.2d 445, 448 (Mo. banc 1985) ) (holding that the Missouri Ethics Commission was an aggrieved party under section 512.020 with standing to appeal an order or judgment implicating the laws it administers); see also State ex rel. Hawley v. Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC , 558 S.W.3d 22, 31-32 (Mo. banc 2018) (holding that statutes enumerating the duties of the Board of Trustees of the Missouri Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund afford the Board standing to bring actions to protect the ability to carry out the general administration of the Fund).

T.N.'s motion to dismiss this appeal is denied.

Analysis

The Central Repository's single point on appeal argues that the trial court committed legal error when it expunged T.N.'s 2016 arrest record. The Central Repository claims that because section 610.122 requires a petitioner to establish that he has no prior or subsequent misdemeanor or felony convictions, T.N. was statutorily ineligible to expunge his 2016 arrest record even though his...