Kevin M. Johnston, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownED92720
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Syllabus
]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
DISSENT
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
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261
Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.