Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Third Division
from the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County Honorable
Benjamin F. Lewis Judge.
T. QUIGLESS, J.
Missouri State Department of Public Safety (the
"Department") appeals from the judgment of the
Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County remanding the case to
the Administrative Hearing Commission (the
"Commission") for a new hearing, and directing the
Commission to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.
We conclude that the decision of the circuit court to remand
the matter to the Commission is not a final judgment and
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
and Procedural History
Department filed a complaint with the Commission against
Jonathan M. Jensen ("Jensen"), claiming cause
existed to discipline Jensen's peace officer license,
pursuant to Sections 590.080.1(2) and (3) RSMo Cum. Supp.
2007. The Department alleged Jensen
committed the offense of perjury, in violation of Section
575.040,  and the offense of making a
false report, in violation of Section 575.080 RSMo Cum. Supp.
2007, in connection with Jensen's participation in a DWI
checkpoint taskforce. Thereafter, the parties filed a Joint
Motion for Consent Order, Joint Stipulation of Facts and
Conclusions of Law, and Waiver of Hearing before the
Administrative Hearing Commission (the "Joint
Motion"). As part of the Joint Motion, Jensen
acknowledged and voluntarily waived his right to a hearing
before the Commission, which, pursuant to Section 590.080.2,
is required in order to determine whether the Director of the
Missouri Department of Public Safety's Peace Officer
Standards and Training ("POST") Commission has
cause for discipline.
to the Joint Motion, the Commission entered a Consent Order,
concluding Jensen was subject to discipline. The Commission
acknowledged the parties stipulated to certain facts and
waived their right to a hearing. The Commission also
incorporated the parties' proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law into the Consent Order. Thereafter,
POST's Director held a hearing to determine the form of
discipline to be imposed as required by Section 590.080.3.
Following the hearing, the Director issued an order
permanently revoking Jensen's peace officer license.
Jensen filed a Motion to Reconsider and Stay Order, which the
Director granted. The Director then held another disciplinary
hearing and issued a new order suspending Jensen's
license for one year and placing Jensen's license on
probation for five years at the end of the suspension period.
filed a petition with the circuit court, seeking judicial
review of the Commission's decision to issue a Consent
Order and the POST Director's decision to discipline
Jensen's peace officer license. Specifically, Jensen
argued, inter alia, that the decision was improper
and violated his procedural due process rights because the
Commission deprived him of his right to a hearing as required
by Section 590.080.2. Jensen argued that the Commission did
not have the authority to dispose of a "cause"
decision without a hearing by issuing a consent order.
circuit court entered judgment in favor of Jensen, finding
the Director's decision was not made upon lawful
procedure and Jensen was deprived of a fair trial. The court
found Section 590.080.2 requires the Commission to conduct a
hearing to determine whether the Director has cause for
discipline, and there is no procedure for waiver of the
hearing. The court concluded:
Because the Director's decision was entered without the
necessary hearing the decision of the Director of the
Department of Public Safety is REVERSED and REMANDED for a
new hearing before the Administrative Hearing Commission to
determine whether the Director has cause to discipline
[Jensen's] license a peace officer [sic]. The Commission
shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on the
November 4, 2016, the Department filed a notice of appeal in
this Court. Thereafter, this Court issued an Order requesting
the parties address the jurisdictional issue of whether the
circuit court's judgment is a final, appealable order.
may seek judicial review of an agency decision by filing a
petition with the proper circuit court. Section 536.110.1.
After reviewing the Commission's decision, the circuit
court "shall render judgment affirming, reversing, or
modifying the agency's order, and may order the
reconsideration of the case in the light of the court's
opinion and judgment, and may order the agency to take such
further action as it may be proper to require[.]"
Section 536.140.5 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2007. Pursuant to Section
536.140.6, a party may appeal from the judgment of a court
reviewing an agency decision as in other civil cases.
512.020(5) RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2007) provides that any party
aggrieved by a decision of a trial court may appeal from any
final judgment in the case. Buemi v. Kerckhoff, 359
S.W.3d 16, 20 (Mo. banc 2011). A decision is final for
purposes of appeal when the agency arrives at a terminal,
complete resolution of the case before it. Fowler v. T.J.
Ahrens Excavating, Inc., 431 S.W.3d 561, 562 (Mo. App.
E.D. 2014). A final and appealable judgment disposes of all
issues and all parties in the case, leaving nothing for
future determination. Columbia Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Epstein, 200 S.W.3d 547, 549 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006).
a cause remanded to an agency does not constitute a final
judgment, and therefore, is not appealable. Schrock v.
Gan, 494 S.W.3d 631, 636 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). For
instance, appeals are not authorized when there is a remand
to an administrative agency for consideration of additional
evidence or further proceedings. See Taylor v. Civil
Serv. Comm'n, 969 S.W.2d 763, 764 (Mo. App. E.D.
1998); Giesler v. City of Ste. Genevieve, 943 S.W.2d
793, 793 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). Furthermore, whether a
decision may be appealed depends on whether or not there was
a determination of the underlying merits of the case.