FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LACLEDE COUNTY Honorable Larry W.
W. SHEFFIELD, C.J.
Daniel Simon ("Driver") appeals from the trial
court's judgment affirming the administrative revocation
of his driver's license. Driver argues it was against the
weight of the evidence for the trial court to find Driver did
not make a statutorily valid refusal to submit to a breath
alcohol test. Driver's argument is without merit, and the
trial court's judgment is affirmed.
and Procedural Background
August 1, 2015, Missouri State Park Ranger, Terry Shaw
("Ranger Shaw"), stopped Driver in Bennett Spring
State Park for driving while intoxicated. During the course
of the stop, Driver stated he had been drinking, showed
several indicators of intoxication on each field sobriety
test administered and refused to complete a portable breath
test. Driver stated, "Well, I'm not going to blow.
I'm not going to blow at the jail either. You can just
arrest me then." At the jail, Ranger Shaw read Driver
the provisions of the implied consent law from a form, and
Driver again refused to take a breath test. Ranger Shaw
issued Driver a revocation notice for refusal to submit to
the breath alcohol test.
filed a petition for review of the revocation. A trial was
held on December 9, 2015, and the trial court upheld the
revocation. Driver appeals.
sole point on appeal is an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence
challenge alleging Driver did not have sufficient information
to make a statutorily valid refusal to submit to the breath
test. He argues he was not advised of the purpose of the test
because Ranger Shaw failed to check one box on the alcohol
influence report form. The box that remained unchecked was
located next to the statement which informs the suspect that
the purpose of the breath test is to determine the alcohol
content of the suspect's blood. For this reason, Driver
argues his refusal was not a valid statutory refusal.
Driver's argument ignores the standard of review and
ignores Ranger Shaw's testimony.
appeals from a court-tried civil case, the trial court's
judgment will be affirmed unless there is no substantial
evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the
evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the
law." White v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d
298, 307-08 (Mo. banc 2010). "When the facts relevant to
an issue are contested, the reviewing court defers to the
trial court's assessment of the evidence."
Id. at 308. "A trial court is free to
disbelieve any, all, or none of that evidence."
though an against-the-weight analysis requires some
consideration of evidence contrary to the result below, the
appellate court still must defer to the credibility
determinations made by the trial court. Houston v.
Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 186 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010). Such
an argument requires the appellant to:
(1) identify the trial court's finding he seeks to
challenge as against the weight of the evidence; (2) identify
all favorable evidence submitted during trial that would
support that finding; (3) identify evidence contrary to the
trial court's finding; and (4) explain why, in light of
the whole record, the supporting evidence is so lacking in
probative value that the trier of fact should have reached a
O'Gorman & Sandroni, P.C. v. Dodson, 478
S.W.3d 539, 544 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). "Where the
appellant fails to follow this framework, the appellant's
argument is 'analytically useless and provides no
support' for his or her challenge." Id.
(quoting In re Marriage of McDaniel, 419 S.W.3d 828,
833 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013)).
issues in a revocation case based on a refusal to submit to a
chemical test are: "(1) whether or not the person was
arrested or stopped; (2) whether the officer had reasonable
grounds to believe that the person was driving a motor
vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition; and (3)
whether or not the person refused to submit to the
test[.]" Neff v. Director of Revenue, 437
S.W.3d 394, 396 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014) (quoting Hinna v.
Director ofRevenue, 77 S.W.3d 616, 620 (Mo.
banc 2002)). "Should the trial court determine any issue
not to be in the affirmative, the Director shall be ordered
to reinstate the driver's license." Mayfield v.