Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, First Division
from the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri The
Honorable Joshua C. Devine, Judge.
Before: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, Mark D.
Pfeiffer, Judge and Cynthia L. Martin, Judge.
Cynthia L. Martin, Judge.
Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Justice Information
Services ("Central Repository") appeals from a
judgment expunging T.N.'s 2016 arrest record pursuant to
section 610.122. The Central Repository argues that because
T.N. had a 2011 speeding conviction, he was statutorily
ineligible for expungement of the arrest record, even though
the speeding conviction had been expunged pursuant to section
610.140. Because expungement of T.N.'s 2011 speeding
conviction pursuant to section 610.140 restored him to the
status he occupied prior to the conviction as if such
conviction had never taken place, it was not legally
erroneous to expunge T.N.'s 2016 arrest record. The trial
court's judgment is affirmed.
and Procedural Background
23, 2018, T.N. petitioned the trial court to expunge an
arrest record generated after T.N. was accused of leaving the
scene of an accident on February 5, 2016. The Central
Repository opposed the petition.
hearing on the petition, T.N. testified that although he was
arrested on February 5, 2016, no charges were ever filed in
the matter. T.N. acknowledged that he had been convicted of a
misdemeanor speeding charge in April 2011. The speeding
conviction was expunged, however, shortly before T.N. filed
the petition to expunge his 2016 arrest record.
trial court entered a judgment and order on October 31, 2018,
expunging the 2016 arrest record ("Judgment"). The
Judgment found that T.N. had not been convicted of any prior
or subsequent misdemeanors or felonies. The Central
Repository filed this timely appeal.
review the trial court's Judgment to determine if it is
supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of
the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law.
Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
The trial court's construction and application of
statutory requirements is a question of law we review de
novo. W.C.H. v. State, 546 S.W.3d 612, 614 (Mo.
App. E.D. 2018).
addressing the merits of the Central Repository's appeal,
we are required to address T.N.'s motion to dismiss,
which argues that the Central Repository is not aggrieved by
the Judgment and has no right of appeal under section
512.020. Section 512.020 affords the right of appeal to
"[a]ny party to a suit aggrieved by any judgment of any
trial court in any civil cause . . . ." "A party
who has not been aggrieved by a judgment has no right or
standing to appeal." Jackson Cty. Bd. of Election
Comm'rs v. Paluka, 13 S.W.3d 684, 687 (Mo. App. W.D.
2000) (citation omitted).
have a duty to determine if a party has standing prior to
addressing the substantive issues of the case."
CACH, LLC v. Askew, 358 S.W.3d 58, 61 (Mo. banc
2012). "'Because standing is a question of law,
review of the issue on appeal is de novo." Schweich
v. Nixon, 408 S.W.3d 769, 773 (Mo. banc 2013) (quoting
CACH, 358 S.W.3d at 61). "'Standing
requires that a party have a personal stake arising from a
threatened or actual injury.'" Id. at 774
(quoting State ex rel. Williams v. Mauer, 722 S.W.2d
296, 298 (Mo. banc 1986)); see also CACH, 358 S.W.3d
at 61 ("A party has standing to sue when it has a
'justiciable interest in the subject matter of the
action.'") (quoting Garrison v. Schmicke,
193 S.W.2d 614, 615 (Mo. 1946)). "A party establishes
standing, therefore, by showing that it has 'some legally
protectable interest in the litigation so as to be directly
and adversely affected by its outcome.'"
Schweich, 408 S.W.3d at 775 (quoting Mo. State
Med. Ass'n v. State, 256 S.W.3d 85, 87 (Mo. banc
2008)); see also Mo. Soybean Ass'n v. Mo.
Clean Water Comm'n, 102 S.W.3d 10, 25 (Mo. banc
2003) (holding that to establish standing, a party must
demonstrate "'a pecuniary or personal interest
directly at issue and subject to immediate or prospective
consequential relief'" (quoting Northgate
Apartments, L.P. v. City of North Kansas City,
45 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001))). "[A]s used in
section 512.020, 'aggrieved' means 'suffering
from an infringement or denial of legal rights."
Jackson Cty. Bd. of Election Comm'rs, 13 S.W.3d
at 687-88 (quoting Gov't Emps. Ins. Co.
(GEICO) v. Clenny, 752 S.W.2d 66, 68 (Mo. App. S.D.
1988) (other citation omitted)).
Central Repository is a "division within the Missouri
state highway patrol responsible for compiling and
disseminating complete and accurate criminal history
records." Section 43.500(2). "Criminal history
record information" is defined to include
"information collected by criminal justice agencies on
individuals consisting of identifiable descriptions and
notations of arrests, detentions, indictments, informations,
or other formal criminal charges, and any disposition arising
therefrom, sentencing, correctional supervision, and
release." Section 43.500(5). The stated purpose for the
Central Repository is described in section 43.503.1:
For the purpose of maintaining complete and accurate criminal
history record information, all police officers of this
state, the clerk of each court, the department of
corrections, the sheriff of each county, the chief law
enforcement official of a city not within a county and the
prosecuting attorney of each county or the circuit attorney
of a city not within a county shall submit certain criminal
arrest, charge, and disposition information to the central
repository for filing without undue delay in the form and
manner required by sections 43.500 to 43.543.
provisions in sections 43.500 to 43.543 address the Central
Repository's obligation to disseminate collected and
maintained criminal history record information to authorized
persons. See, e.g., sections 43.507, 43.531, and
43.532. The Central Repository thus has an interest in