From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chamberlain v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Apr 30, 1996
921 S.W.2d 138 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)

Summary

In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 138-39.

Summary of this case from Battle v. Director of Revenue

Opinion

No. 68964.

April 30, 1996.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY; HON. GEORGE DRAPER.

Rodney P. Massman, Special Assistant Atty. Gen., Missouri Department of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Michael J. Smith, St. Louis, for respondent.


The Director of Revenue (DOR) attempts to appeal an order reinstating David Allen Chamberlain's driving privileges pursuant to § 302.500 et seq. RSMo 1994.

All statutory references are to RSMo 1994.

Chamberlain's driving license was suspended as a result of allegedly driving under the influence with a blood alcohol level of .10. He requested an administrative hearing under § 302.505, which sustained the suspension. He petitioned for a trial de novo hearing under § 302.535. The case was assigned to a traffic court commissioner. The traffic court commissioner heard the case and found Chamberlain's driving privileges should be reinstated. The commissioner found the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest Chamberlain, but he did not have a blood alcohol concentration of .10 or more.

Before addressing the issues on appeal, we have an affirmative duty to determine whether we have jurisdiction. Webster v. City of Cool Valley, 838 S.W.2d 520 (Mo.App.E.D. 1992).

We find the order is without legal effect. Section 302.500 et seq. provides a comprehensive procedure to review a suspension or revocation of a drivers' license. Under § 302.535.1, the petition for trial de novo shall be filed in the circuit court, heard and decided by a circuit judge or an associate circuit judge, not a traffic court judge or commissioner. State of Missouri ex rel. Coyle v. O'Toole, 914 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App.E.D. 1996). Also, a traffic court commissioner is not authorized by § 479.500 to hear a drivers' license suspension or revocation trial de novo. Id.

Chamberlain's petition remains pending in the circuit court. We remand for a hearing.

REINHARD, P.J., and GRIMM, J., concur.


Summaries of

Chamberlain v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Apr 30, 1996
921 S.W.2d 138 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)

In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 138-39.

Summary of this case from Battle v. Director of Revenue

In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 139.

Summary of this case from Klipsch v. Lohman, Director of Revenue

In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 138-39.

Summary of this case from Snead v. Director of Revenue

In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 133-39.

Summary of this case from Sparks v. Director of Revenue

In Chamberlain, we found that an order entered after a trial de novo heard by a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 139.

Summary of this case from McDevitt v. Director of Revenue

In Chamberlain, we held that a suspension/revocation judgment entered after a trial de novo before a traffic commissioner was without legal effect and that the petition remained in the circuit court. Chamberlain, 921 S.W.2d at 139.

Summary of this case from Gantz v. Director of Revenue
Case details for

Chamberlain v. State

Case Details

Full title:DAVID ALLEN CHAMBERLAIN, RESPONDENT, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, DIRECTOR OF…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One

Date published: Apr 30, 1996

Citations

921 S.W.2d 138 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Sparks v. Director of Revenue

We agree. This case is controlled by our recent decision in Chamberlain v. Director of Revenue, 921 S.W.2d…

Sooch v. Director of Revenue

Section 302.535 provides that petitions for trials de novo shall be filed in the circuit court and heard by…