Case Name: Tom Edward PERSONS Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-05-19
Citations: 968 S.W.2d 259
Docket Number: No. 72764
Parties: Tom Edward PERSONS Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 968
Pages: 259–259

Head Matter:
Tom Edward PERSONS Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Respondent.
No. 72764.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
May 19, 1998.
Stephen Ray Porter, Monroe City, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Evan J. Buchheim, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The Director of Revenue revoked driver's license for one year for refusing to submit to a blood alcohol test. Driver filed a petition, and the trial court conducted a hearing. See section 577.041.4, RSMo 1994. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the petition and affirmed the revocation.
Driver appeals. In his sole point, he contends that there was no evidence that he "was physically driving or operating a motor vehicle" as required by section 577.001.1 and 577.020, RSMo Cum Supp.1996. We disagree and affirm.
Although there was no direct evidence that anyone saw driver "physically driving or operating" his vehicle, sufficient circumstantial evidence was presented which supports the trialcourt's judgment. A witness came upon driver's vehicle; it was in a ditch. The witness saw driver exit the vehicle through the driver's door. No one else was around except driver and the witness. Driver had blood on his face, yet later told the arresting officer that he was not involved in the accident.
We have studied the briefs, legal file, and transcript. No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended opinion.
The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).