Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Kevin M. Johnston, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, Respondent.
Case Number: ED92720
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kevin-m-johnston-appellant-v-director-of-revenue-respondent-d92720
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=36915
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=Kevin+M.+Johnston%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+Director+of+Revenue%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=24&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+conviction&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 24; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: conviction)

---
## 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