Tommy Eugene Atkins, Respondent, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Appellant

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: Tommy Eugene Atkins, Respondent, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Appellant Case Number: ED75844 Handdown Date: 11/09/1999 Appeal From: Circuit Court of City of St. Louis, Hon. Edward Sweeney, Jr. Counsel for Appellant: James A. Chenault, III Counsel for Respondent: Harold E. Horsley, Jr. Opinion Summary: The Director of Revenue appeals from a judgment that set aside the revocation of Mr. Atkins's driver's license and assessed costs against the Director. AFFIRMED AS AMENDED. Division One holds: 1)The trial court did not err in reinstating Mr. Atkins's driving privileges. 2) Section 536.087.1 RSMO 1994 does not authorize the assessment of costs against the Director in a driver's license proceeding. Citation: Opinion Author: James R. Dowd, Judge Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED AS AMENDED. Gaertner and Simon, JJ., concur. Opinion: The Director of Revenue ("Director") appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis City. This judgment reinstated Mr. Atkins's driver's license and assessed costs against the Director. "Absent a statute to the contrary, costs are not recoverable from the state in its own courts." Reed v. Director of

Revenue, 834 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Mo.App. 1992). Section 536.087.1 RSMO 1994 provides for recovering costs against the state; however, driver's license proceedings are excluded from this statute by Section 536.085.1 RSMo 1994. Furthermore, Mr. Atkins conceded this issue at oral argument. Point granted. The Director also contends that the trial court erred in finding that Officer Williams did not have reasonable grounds to arrest Mr. Atkins. We disagree. In reviewing a court-tried case, we must sustain the judgment below unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). We must accept all evidence and inferences supporting the judgment and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Gibson v. Adams, 946 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Mo.App. E.D. 1997). There is substantial evidence to support the trial court's judgment. The judgment is not against the weight of the evidence. It does not erroneously apply the law. Point denied. Pursuant to Rule 84.14, we affirm the judgment but amend it to delete the costs assessed to the Director. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.