Vette v. Director of Revenue, WD 60839.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Patricia Breckenridge |
| Citation | 99 S.W.3d 563 |
| Parties | Mark Denton VETTE, Respondent Pro Se, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. WD 60839.,WD 60839. |
| Decision Date | 25 March 2003 |
Page 563
v.
DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant.
Page 564
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 565
Ronald Q. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for appellant.
Mark Denton Vette, Rockport, pro se.
Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., LOWENSTEIN and HOLLIGER, JJ.
PATRICIA BRECKENRIDGE, Judge.
The director of revenue appeals from a judgment of the circuit court setting aside the denial of Mark Vette's application for a driver's license. The circuit court set aside the denial after finding that the agency's decision was not supported by competent and substantial evidence. This court finds that (1) the director was not required to file the record with the circuit court; (2) the circuit court applied the incorrect scope of judicial review; and (3) Mr. Vette did not meet his burden of proof. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the circuit court to reinstate the director's denial of Mr. Vette's application for a driver's license and proceed on Mr. Vette's request for hardship driving privileges.
On January 11, 2001, the director sent Mr. Vette a letter denying his application for a driver's license and informing him that he would not be eligible for a driver's license until December 28, 2009, ten years from the date of his most recent driving while intoxicated conviction. The director denied Mr. Vette's application because he had three driving while intoxicated convictions. The director based her denial on section 302.060(9), RSMo 2000,1 which states that a driver's license is denied for ten years "No any person who has been convicted more than twice of violating state law ... relating to driving while intoxicated."
On February 9, 2001, Mr. Vette filed a petition in the circuit court for review of the administrative decision as permitted by section 302.311, and for issuance of a hardship driver's license. In his count for review of the administrative decision, Mr. Vette first pled his address and the address of the director. Mr. Vette next stated that the director had notified him of her decision to deny him a driver's license and he was timely filing an appeal of that decision. Finally, Mr. Vette requested that the circuit court review the director's
Page 566
decision under sections 302.311 and 536.140.
The clerk of court mailed the petition to the director on February 14, 2001, and the return receipt showed the director received the petition on February 16, 2001. The director filed her answer, which incorporated a certified copy of Mr. Vette's driving record, on April 23, 2001. The letter of transmittal stated that the delay in filing was due to the time necessary to obtain Mr. Vette's driving record from Nebraska. In her answer to the count for review of the administrative decision, the director stated that the agency's record revealed three convictions for offenses related to driving while intoxicated: an excessive blood alcohol content conviction in Missouri on March 10, 1993; a driving while intoxicated conviction in Nebraska on July 2, 1998; and a driving while intoxicated conviction in Nebraska on December 28, 1999. She also stated that, after investigating Mr. Vette's record, she determined it would not be safe for her to issue him a license.
The circuit court held a review hearing on June 12, 2001. Neither party presented any evidence. Instead, Mr. Vette argued that the director failed to timely file her answer and the agency's record. Representing the director, the prosecuting attorney of Atchison County agreed that the record supported Mr. Vette's allegations that the director's filing of the answer and the agency's record was untimely.
In its Amended Order and Judgment dated August 21, 2001, the circuit court held that, under section 536.130, the director had thirty days to file her answer and the agency's record, and the thirty days began to run when the director received the petition on February 16, 2001. Because it found that the director did not request an extension of time to file her answer, the circuit court struck the director's answer and the record. The circuit court further held that Mr. Vette's petition was timely filed and, because Mr. Vette's petition was the only properly-filed pleading before the court, the denial of Mr. Vette's driver's license was "unsupported by competent and substantial evidence" in violation of Section 536.140. The director filed this appeal.
Section 302.311 permits a person whose application for a driver's license is denied or withheld to appeal the director's decision to the circuit court. The statute reads, in pertinent part:
In the event an application for a license is denied or withheld, or in the event that a license is suspended or revoked by the director, the applicant or licensee so aggrieved may appeal to the circuit court ... in the manner provided by chapter 536, RSMo, for the review of administrative decisions at any time within thirty days after notice that a license is denied or withheld or that a license is revoked. Upon such appeal the cause shall be heard de novo and the circuit court may order the director to ... sustain the suspension or revocation by the director, set aside or modify the same, or revoke such license. Appeals from the judgment of the circuit court may be taken as in civil cases.
Section 302.311. On appeal from the circuit court's decision, this court reviews the judgment of the circuit court rather than the director's decision. Silman v. Dir. of Revenue, 880 S.W.2d 574, 576 (Mo.App. 1994). This court will affirm the judgment of the circuit court 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. Id. (citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)).
Page 567
In her sole point on appeal, the director claims the circuit court erred in setting aside the denial of Mr. Vette's application for a driver's license because Mr. Vette failed to show that he was eligible for a driver's license or dispute the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thanner v. Dir. of Revenue, ED 104300
...rather than the Director's decision. Silman v. Dir. of Revenue , 880 S.W.2d 574, 576 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994) ; Vette v. Dir. of Revenue , 99 S.W.3d 563, 566 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003). This court will affirm the judgment of the circuit court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it ......
-
Carlson v. Fischer, WD 63113.
...court's decision, this court reviews the judgment of the circuit court rather than the director's decision. Vette v. Dir. of Revenue, 99 S.W.3d 563, 566 (Mo.App.2003). This court will affirm the judgment of the circuit court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is again......
-
Radmacher v. Dir. of Revenue, WD 75763.
...536.140 sets forth the scope of judicial review of an administrative agency's decision in a “contested” case. Vette v. Dir. of Revenue, 99 S.W.3d 563, 568 (Mo.App.2003). It permits the reviewing court to determine, among other things,4 whether the decision is “arbitrary, capricious or unrea......
-
Ice v. Harris, SD 29973.
...to ensure the record is filed, either by filing it personally or requesting that the agency file it." Vette v. Dir. of Revenue, 99 S.W.3d 563, 567 (Mo.App.2003). "This is consistent with cases that have interpreted the filing requirement under section 536.130, RSMo 2000, as these cases conc......