Tharp v. Director of Revenue, 72801

• Citation: 969 S.W.2d 330
• Decision Date: 09 June 1998
• Docket Number: No. 72801,72801
• Parties: Gary A. THARP, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Page 330

969 S.W.2d 330

Gary A. THARP, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant.

No. 72801.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Four.

June 9, 1998.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Nadia Termanini, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.

Thomas P. Howe, St. Louis, for respondent.

HOFF, Judge.

Appellant, the Director of Revenue for the State of Missouri (Director), appeals from the trial court's judgment reinstating the driving privileges of Gary A. Tharp (Driver), which had been revoked pursuant to Section 577.041. ¹ We reverse and remand.

By stipulation of the parties, the facts are taken entirely from the arresting officer's report and the Department of Revenue's Form 4323 pertaining to this case.

On January 12, 1997, Driver was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. As part of the police report, the arresting officer completed the Missouri Department of Revenue's Form 2389. The implied consent section of this form indicates Driver was informed that if he refused to submit to a breath test, his "driver's license shall immediately be revoked for one year." Driver refused to submit to a breath test to determine the alcohol content in his bloodstream. On January 13, 1997, the arresting officer mailed to Driver the Department of Revenue's Form 4323, Refusal to Submit to Alcohol/Drug Chemical Test Notice of Revocation of Your Driving Privileges/15 Day Driving Permit (Revocation Notice). The revocation was to begin on January 28, 1997 for a period of one year.

Driver filed a petition for review of the Director's order revoking his driving privileges. The trial court found Driver was not given proper notice that his driving privileges would be revoked, because the notice mailed on January 13, 1997 was for an administrative review hearing rather than a notice of revocation and a fifteen day permit. As a result, Driver's driving privileges were reinstated. This appeal followed.

On appeal, Director argues the trial court's judgment that Driver was not properly notified is not supported by substantial evidence. Director asserts the police report, offered into evidence at the hearing, shows Driver was given proper notice of driving privilege revocation for refusing to submit to a breath test. The police report states Driver was sent the Revocation Notice the following day.

The trial court's decision must 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. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

Section 577.041 requires a person be warned that refusal to submit to a chemical test to determine blood alcohol content will result in the loss of driving privileges for one year. In Teson v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, 937 S.W.2d 195 (Mo. banc 1996), the Missouri Supreme Court adopted an actual prejudice standard to determine whether the warning given in a license revocation for failure to...