Kevin M. Johnston, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, Respondent.

]ntbe;!OOissouri<!Courtof~ppea(s QEastern1!\istrict DIVISIONFIVE KEVINM.JOHNSTON, Appellant, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) AppealfromtheCircuitCourt ofSt.LouisCounty No.ED92720 vs. DIRECTOROFREVENUE, HonorableBarbaraWallace Respondent.

KevinJohnston("Driver")appealsa judgmententeredin theCircuitCourtofSt. LouisCounty("trialcourt")denyingthereinstatementofhisdrivingprivileges.Thetrial courtfoundthattheDirectorofRevenue("theDirector")properlysuspendedDriver's licensebasedonhisconvictioninKentuckyfordrivingundertheinfluence.Weaffirm. I.BACKGROUND Thefactsofthiscasearenotindispute.Driverresidedin Kentuckyuntil2005, whenhemovedto thestateofMissouri.UponmovingtoMissouriin2005,Driver surrenderedhisKentuckylicensefora validMissourilicense. OnApril23,1996,longbeforeDrivermovedtoMissouri,thestateofKentucky chargedhimwithOperatinga MotorVehicleUndertheInfluenceofanIntoxicating Beverage- 1stOffense("DWI").OnJuly15,1996,Driverwasfoundguiltyofthat offenseandsentenced.Hefileda noticeofappealonJuly23,1996.Theappeal

remainedpendingfor3,458days,andtheconvictionwasnotaffirmeduntilJanuary10, 2006.Therecordprovidesnoexplanationforthenearlynineandonehalfyears' pendencyoftheKentuckyappeal.1 AfterDriver'scasewasaffirmedonappeal,theKentuckyDepartmentof TransportationnotifiedthestateofMissouriofDriver'sDWIconviction.Kentucky's noticeliststhecitationdateasApril23,1996,andtheconvictiondateasJanuary10, 2006.TheDirectorofRevenue("theDirector")sentDrivera noticeonFebruary21, 2006statingthathisdrivingprivilegeswouldbesuspendedforthirtydays,pursuantto section302.304RSMo20002,effectiveMarch22,2006. Driverthenfileda PetitionforReviewin thetrialcourtonMarch21,2006, pursuanttosection302.311.ThetrialcourtdeniedhisPetitionandheldthat"pointswere properlyassessedbytheDepartmentofRevenuefora KentuckyDrivingWhile Intoxicated."Driverappeals. II.DISCUSSION Wewillaffirmthetrialcourt'sdecisionunlessit is unsupportedbysubstantial evidence,it is againsttheweightoftheevidence,it erroneouslydeclaresthelaw,orit erroneouslyappliesthelaw.Jenningsv. Dir.ofRevenue,986S.W.2d513,513-14(Mo. App.E.D.1999)(citingMurphyv.Carron,536S.W.2d30,32(Mo.banc1976». However,"[i]ftheevidenceis uncontrovertedoradmittedsothattherealissueis a legal oneastothelegaleffectoftheevidence,thenthereis noneedtodefertothetrialcourt's judgment."Friedrichv. Dir.ofRevenue,124S.W.3d30,32(Mo.App.W.D.2004) (quotingHinnahv.Dir.ofRevenue,77S.W.3d616,620(Mo.banc2002». IAtoralargument,Driver'scounselstatedthatDriver'sattorneypassedawayduringthependencyofthe Kentuckyappeal. 2Unlessotherwisenoted,allstatutoryreferencesareto RSMo2000. 2

Inhisfirstpointonappeal,Driverarguesthatthetrialcourterredin affirmingthe Director'ssuspensionofhisdrivingprivilegesbecausetheDirectorexceededher authorityinissuingthesuspension.Wedisagree. Driver'sargumentstemsfromhisassertionthathewasconvictedofDWIonJuly 15,1996,ratherthanJanuary10,2006.UndertheprovisionsoftheDriverLicense Compact("theCompact"),section302.600,DriverarguesthatKentucky,notMissouri, washishomestateat thetimeofhisconviction.Therefore,Driverasserts,theDirector exceededherauthoritywhenshesuspendedhislicensebasedona convictionthat occurredwhenMissouriwasnotevenhishomestate. Webelieve,however,thatthiscasemayberesolvedindependentoftheCompact becauseMissouri'sstatutoryschemeauthorizestheDirectortosuspendDriver'slicense fora validKentuckyconviction."[T]he[D]irectoris authorizedtorelyonconvictionsin otherstatestosuspenddrivingprivileges" Westv. Dir.ofRevenue,184S.W.3d578, 580(Mo.App.S.D.2006)(quotingCarlsonv. Fischer,149S.W.3d603,606(Mo.App. W.D.2004));seealsosection302.160.Section302.160providesthat,whentheDirector receivesnoticeofa convictioninanotherstate,"which,if committedin thisstate,would resultin theassessmentofpoints,thedirectoris authorizedtoassessthepointsand suspendorrevoketheoperatingprivilegewhentheaccumulatedpointssorequireas providedinsection302.304."InMissouri,a first-timeDWIoffenseassessesaneight- pointpenalty.Section302.302.1(10).TheDirectormustsuspendthelicenseanddriving privilegesofanydriverwhoaccumulateseightpointsineighteenmonths.3Section 302.304.3.Thus,theDirectorvalidlysuspendedDriver'slicensewhenshereceived 3 Driveractuallyaccumulatedtenpointsineighteenmonthsbecausehewasalsoassessedtwopointsfora convictionforfailuretoyieldrightofwayinSt.LouisCountyonNovember1,2005.Thisconvictionis notatissueonappeal. 3

noticefromtheKentuckyDepartmentofTransportationofDriver'sDWIconvictionon January10,2006. Driver'sargumentthathewasactuallyconvictedonJuly15,1996,is ofnoavail. TheKentuckyDepartmentofTransportation'snoticetotheDirectorlistsDriver'sdateof convictionasJanuary10,2006.Thus,thestateofKentuckydesignatedJanuary10, 2006,astheconvictiondate.Driver'sargument,ina Missouricourt,thattheKentucky court'sjudgmenterroneouslydeterminedhisdateofconvictionamountstoa collateral attack.SeeBLACK'SLAWDICTIONARY255(7thEd.1999)(defining"collateral attack"as"[a]nattackona judgmententeredin a differentproceeding"). InCarlsonv.Fischer,149S.W.3d603(Mo.App.W.D.2004),Mr.Carlson attemptedtochallengetheproprietyofanOhiocourtjudgmentthatfoundhimguiltyof drivingundertheinfluence.149S.W.3dat 607.Hepresentedevidencetoa Missouri trialcourtthat,inOhio,hehadneverfailedtoappear,wasnevertoldhisbondwasbeing forfeited,neverentereda guiltyplea,andwasneverfoundguiltyofoperatinga motor vehiclewhileintoxicated.Id.TheWesternDistrictstatedthatMr.Carlsoncouldnot challengetheOhiocourtjudgmentina proceedingundersection302.311(outliningthe proceduresforappealingtheDirector'ssuspensionorrevocationofa license).Id.The Courtwentontosay:"[a]drivercannotcollaterallyattackpreviousconvictionsin an actiontochallengea driver'slicensebeingrevokedorsuspended."Id.(quotingKayserv. Dir.ofRevenue,22S.W.3d240,243(Mo.App.E.D.2000)).Rather,theCourtsaidthat anychallengetoMr.Carlson'sOhioconvictionhadto bemadeinOhio.Id.at 608. Driver,likeMr.Carlson,improperlyattemptstochallengetheproprietyofa Kentucky judgment -namely,Kentucky'sdesignateddateofconviction-ina Missouricourt. 4

Fortheforegoingreasons,theDirectorproperlysuspendedDriver'slicense pursuanttosection304.302forDriver'sJanuary10,2006,DWIconvictionin Kentucky. Pointoneis denied. Inhissecondpointonappeal,Driverarguesthatthattrialcourterredin affirming hissuspensionbecauseKentuckywasnota memberoftheCompactat thetimeofhis conviction,andthereforeit remainsinapplicable.HavingdecidedDriver'sappeal independentoftheCompact,weneednotaddresshissecondpoint. Thejudgmentis affirmed. f£Z~ KennethM.Romines,C.J.,dissentsinseparateopinion KurtS.Odenwald,J.,concurswithoriginalopinion 5

]ntbe;fOOissouri(!Courtof~ppeals <!Eastern11Bistrict DIVISIONFIVE KEVINM.JOHNSTON, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) AppealfromtheCircuitCourt ofSt.LouisCounty No.ED92720 Appellant, vs. DIRECTOROFREVENUE, HonorableBarbaraWallace

I dissent.Eventhissmallcase,containingonlysixpagesoftranscriptandtwo exhibits,containsenoughlegalfoddertofeeda lawschoolexam. Initially,therecordwascompiledbeforea trafficcommissionerfollowedbya hollowreviewbya CircuitJudge.I cannotfindanyprovisionofArticleV ofthe MissouriConstitutionwhichdictatesthisprocedure.1 / Secondarily,whendoesa convictionoccurforthepurposesofusebythe respondent:onthedateofconvictionofa defendantbya jury,ortenyearslaterwhenan AppellateCourtgetsaroundtodismissingtheappeal?I submitthata CircuitCourtcould recognizeandremedythisverycaseusingequitableprinciples,butit is nottobe. Thirdly,whatis theuseandapplicationtobegiven§302.1602,onourfacts? IIntheInterestof B.T.,218S.W.3d575,576n.1(Mo.App.RD.2007)

Lastly,whatis theapplicationtobegiven§302.600-euphemisticallyknownas theDriverLicenseCompact? Ineachofthesefourareasarewonderfulwarrenstopursuelegalrabbits-I shall limitmychasetothethirdandfourthareas,witha feinttoareatwo. §302.160reads: Whenthedirectorofrevenuereceivesnoticeofa convictionin anotherstateor froma federalcourt,which,if committedin thisstate,wouldresultin the assessmentofpoints,thedirectoris authorizedtoassessthepointsandsuspendor revoketheoperatingprivilegewhentheaccumulatedpointssorequireas providedin§302.304. Myreadingofthesewordscombinedwitha reviewofthecaseswrittenpursuant tothissection3, whenreadin conjunctionwith§302.600convincesmethat§302.160 appliesonlytoMissouridriverswhentheyventureintootherstatesorontoFederal Lands;thecasesdealspecificallywithMissouridrivers. Asthefactsin thiscaseshow,appellantwasa Kentuckylicenseddriverwhenhe wasconvictedafterjuryverdict,in1996:thus§302.160,supra,didnot,andcouldnot applytoappellant.Missourihadnolicenseto revoke. Duringtheappellateinterregnumin Kentucky,appellant,movingonwithhislife, crossedtheriverin2004,surrenderedhisKentuckylicensetoMissouriandobtaineda MissouriLicense. Kentucky,in 2006,disposedoftheappealandappellantpaida finetoKentucky ofFourhundredandeighty-sixdollarsandfiftycents.A Kentuckybureaucrat,then 2Allstatutoryreferencesareto RSMo(2000) 3Westv.DirectorofRevenue,184S.W.3d578(Mo.App.S.D.2006) Carlsonv. Fischer,149S.W.3d603(Mo.App.W.D.2004) Callahanv. DirectorofRevenue,878S.W.2d826(Mo.App.E.D.1993) Allenv. LaPage,579S.W.2d391(Mo.App.E.D.1979) Farnsworthv. DirectorofRevenue,573S.W.2d135(Mo.App.1978) Schuilingv.Scott,493S.W.2d4(Mo.App.1973) 2

havingobtainedappellantsaddress,informedtheRespondentofthetenyearold conviction-resultingin thesuspensionbeforeus. Toapply§302.160,supra,tothesefactsexceedstheintentofthestatute.The statueappliestoa Missouridriverwhowasa Missouridriverwhentheincidentoccurred. If thestatutegoesfurthersubstantialconstitutionalconcernsarise -nottomentionsimple jurisdictionalconcerns.It wouldalsobeniceif weshowedFullFaithandCredit evidentiaryconcernasopposedtorelyingonthee-mailsofthiscase. Themajority,relyingonCarlsonv.Fischer,149S.W.3d603(Mo.App.W.D. 2004)andWestv.Directorof Revenue,184S.W.3d578(Mo.App.S.D.2006),holdsthat appellantmaynotcollaterallyattackhisKentuckyconviction.Ofcourse,asa general propositiona foreignconvictioncanbecollaterallyattacked.4Here,appellantdoesnot collaterallyattacktheKentuckyconviction.Theattackmadeis thattheDirectorhadno legalauthoritytosuspendhislicense. Indeed,whyhavea "DriverLicenseCompact"(§302.600)if it wasthe Legislativeintenttohave§302.160coverthisfactualsituation?Appellantwasa Kentuckydriver,theDirectorhadnoauthoritytosuspend. Whatevertheimpactof§302.600mightbe,it neednotbeconsidered.Though counselfortheDirectormovedtheCommissionertotakeJudicialNoticeoftheCompact, andtheCommissionerdid -thereis nothingin thisrecord-andnothingintheHistorical andStatutoryNotesto§302.600, -nordoesthiswritersresearchreveal-astowhereand 4Phillipsv.Fallen,6 S.W.3d862,864(Mo.bane1999) 3

whentheKentuckylegislatureagreedtobecomemembersoftheCompact.Simplyput, theDriverLicenseCompactdoesnotapplyin thisCase- Kentuckyisnota member.5 TheactionoftheDirectorsuspendingAppellant'slicenseinMissourishouldbe reversed. il~ 5Schuetzv.Com.,DeptofTransp.,BureauofDriverLicensing,753A.2d915(Pa.Cmw1th.,2000)and Hughesv. OhioDur.OfMotorVehicles,681N.E.2d430(Ohio,1997) 4