Susanna Salas-Cox, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Defendant/Appellant.
Decision date: Unknown
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
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District Case Style: Susanna Salas-Cox, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: 27350 Handdown Date: 04/13/2006 Appeal From: On Motion for Remand Counsel for Appellant: Susanna Salas-Cox, Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Cheryl Caponegro Nield Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Rahmeyer, P.J., Parrish, J., and Lynch, J. Opinion:
PER CURIAM. The Director of Revenue ("Director") appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Taney
County ordering Director to reinstate the license of Susanna Salas-Cox ("Respondent") to operate a motor vehicle, which had been revoked pursuant to section 577.041.(FN1) An affidavit from the Central Transcribing Supervisor at the Office of the State Court Administrators, attached to a previously filed motion for extension of time filed in this appeal, states that a record of this trial was made by electronic sound recording; however, a letter from the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Taney County, attached to Director's motion, states that the clerk searched the recording database for this case and was unable to retrieve the recording of the hearing. Further, this Court has reviewed and considered Respondent's response to its order of March 28, 2006. A record of the evidence adduced at the hearing is necessary to review any alleged error in regard to these findings. See Hardin v. Director of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999). Here, no such record exists. "Under these
circumstances, the correct procedure is to reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial." Id. (citing Keller v. Director of Revenue, 947 S.W.2d 478, 479 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997); see also Henzlik v. Director of Revenue, 951 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997); Wolansky v. Director of Revenue, 936 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996). Because there was no sound recording, we have no choice but to reverse and remand. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial on the record. Footnotes: FN1.All references to statutes are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise specified. 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.