Ralph Butler, Respondent, v. Missouri State Criminal Records Repository, et al., Appellants.
Decision date: UnknownED89622
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.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Ralph Butler, Respondent, v. Missouri State Criminal Records Repository, et al., Appellants. Case Number: ED89622 Handdown Date: 12/18/2007 Appeal From: Circuit Court of City of St. Louis, Hon. John F. Garvey Counsel for Appellant: Christopher R. Fehr Counsel for Respondent: Ralph W. Butler Opinion Summary: The state appeals the trial court's judgment ordering expungement of Ralph Butler's arrest record under section 610.123, RSMo Supp. 2005. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Division Three holds: The failure to make a record of the proceedings requires remand for a hearing on the record. Citation: Opinion Author: Roy L. Richter, Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Ahrens, and Norton, JJ., concur Opinion:
The State of Missouri ("State") appeals the trial court's judgment ordering expungement of an arrest record on Ralph Butler ("Butler") under Section 610.123 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2005. We reverse and remand. I. BACKGROUND Butler filed a petition seeking expungement of an arrest. Although the trial court conducted a hearing, it neglected to record the proceedings. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Butler and ordered his record expunged. The State appeals. II. DISCUSSION The State alleges that the trial court erred in granting Butler's motion to expunge his arrest record because Butler failed to establish his right to expungement under Section 610.122. Section 610.122 allows a court to expunge any record of an arrest where: the court determines that the arrest was based on false information and the following conditions exist: (1) There is no probable cause, at the time of the action to expunge, to believe the individual committed the offense; (2) No charges will be pursued as a result of the arrest; (3) The subject of the arrest has no prior or subsequent misdemeanor or felony convictions;(4) The subject of the arrest did not receive a suspended imposition of sentence for the offense for which the arrest was made or for any offense related to the arrest; and (5) No civil action is pending relating to the arrest or the records sought to be expunged. No record was made of the hearing required by Section 610.123, leaving us nothing to review. "A judgment must be based on evidence and not speculation." Glover v. Saint Louis County Circuit Court, 157 S.W.3d 329, 331 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). Without supporting evidence, a judgment cannot stand. Wesley v. Crestwood Police Dept., 148 S.W.3d 838, 840 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004). Without a record, it is impossible for this Court to determine what evidence was before the court and this Court may not speculate on the evidentiary basis for the trial court's decision. Glover, 157 S.W.3d at 331.
III. CONCLUSION The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a hearing on the record.
Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
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.