OTT LAW

Ronald Greco, Respondent, v. Director of Revenue, Appellant.

Decision date: October 24, 2023ED111549

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

SPECIAL DIVISION

RONALD GRECO, ) No. ED111549 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Jefferson County v. ) Cause No. 20JE-CC00202 ) DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, ) Honorable Katherine M. Hardy-Senkel ) appellant. ) Filed: October 24, 2023

The Director of Revenue for the State of Missouri appeals from the judgment ordering the Director to expunge the permanent denial of Ronald Greco's driving privileges. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded. Background Greco was convicted of driving while intoxicated in October 1991, February 1997, January 1998, and November 2002. Following these convictions, the Director denied Greco's driving privileges as required by § 302.060.1(9), RSMo 2016. 1 Greco petitioned the circuit court to reinstate his driving privileges after ten years as allowed by § 302.060.1(9). The circuit court reinstated his driving privileges in March 2013.

1 All statutory references herein are to RSMo 2016, as updated.

2

In February 2020, Greco was convicted again of driving while intoxicated. The Director notified Greco that in March 2020 his driving privileges would be revoked permanently. Greco filed an application for review of the Director's decision in the circuit court. The circuit court entered a judgment ordering the Director to expunge the permanent denial of driving privileges from Greco's driving record. The Director appeals. Standard of Review The resolution of this appeal depends upon the interpretation of § 302.060.1(9). The interpretation of a statute is reviewed de novo. Wilmoth v. Dir. of Revenue, 669 S.W.3d 102, 108 (Mo. banc 2023). "This Court's primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute at issue." Black River Motel, LLC v. Patriots Bank, 669 S.W.3d 116, 122 (Mo. banc 2023) (quoting Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 202 (Mo. banc 2014)). Analysis The Director claims the circuit court's judgment ordering the Director to expunge Greco's permanent denial of driving privileges violated § 302.060.1(9). Section 302.060.1(9) requires the Director to "immediately deny any driving privilege" to anyone convicted of a driving while intoxicated offense more than twice. A person may seek reinstatement of driving privileges after ten years when specific conditions are met. 2 Section 302.060.1(9). However, "[n]o person may obtain a license pursuant to the provisions of this subdivision through court action more than one time ...." Id. In other words, the plain language of § 302.060.1(9) prevents any driver from obtaining a second reinstatement of driving privileges.

2 Section 306.020.1(9) prevents the reinstatement of driving privileges to individuals who have been convicted within ten years of an offense related to alcohol, controlled substances, or drugs, and pose a threat to public safety.

3

Here, Greco's February 2020 conviction was his fifth conviction for driving while intoxicated. Accordingly, the plain language of § 302.060.1(9) required the Director to deny Greco's driving privileges. The Director's denial of Greco's driving privileges complied with the plain language of the statute. Further, the Director followed the statute's requirements by permanently denying Greco's driving privileges because Greco already availed himself of the one-time reprieve in § 302.060.1(9). A driver may not seek any sort of reinstated driving privileges under either § 302.060.1(9) or § 302.309.3(6)(b), 3 if driving privileges were reinstated under § 302.060.1(9) and the driver subsequently is convicted of another alcohol-related driving offense. State ex rel. Dir. of Revenue v. Mobley, 49 S.W.3d 178, 180 (Mo. banc 2001). "Any person who is denied a license permanently in this state because of an alcohol-related conviction subsequent to a restoration of such person's driving privileges pursuant to [§ 302.060.1(9)] shall not be eligible for limited driving privilege pursuant to the provisions of this subdivision." Section 302.309.3(8)(b). The Director properly followed § 302.060.1(9)'s plain language and permanently denied Greco's driving privileges. The circuit court erred in ordering the Director to expunge the permanent denial. Conclusion The circuit court erred in ordering the Director to expunge the permanent denial of Greco's driving privileges. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to deny Greco's petition.

3 Section 302.309.3(6)(b) limits the circumstances wherein drivers may seek limited driving privileges following a suspension or revocation of their driving privileges.

4

John P. Torbitzky, P.J.

Renee Hardin-Tammons, J., and Roy L. Richter, S.J., concur.

Related Opinions

Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority4,922 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,374 words

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,516 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,993 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976

affirmed

Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,670 words