Court Opinion

ID: 9760955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:25:36.345581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:16.967400
License: Public Domain

ROBERTSON, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The General Assembly of Missouri has provided that a person loses his driving privilege if he cannot obey laws relating to the operation of motor vehicles. Section 302.304, RSMo Cum.Supp.1989. Recognizing that the loss of the driving privilege may subject a person to serious financial trauma and require the government to provide support by the welfare system if that person cannot find other means of transportation to a place of employment or where the employment requires the person to drive a vehicle, the legislature has established a procedure for obtaining a hardship driving privilege. Section 302.309.3, RSMo Supp.1988.1 That procedure has no common law antecedent; it is purely statutory. A court is permitted to grant only the relief provided by the statute. A court cannot grant relief either outside the statutory scheme or expressly prohibited by the statute.
The analysis of the majority opinion showing that the legislature unwisely concluded that the application for a hardship driving privilege is an ex parte proceeding is correct. Given the statutory scheme, this Court cannot engraft upon the statute a requirement of participation by the Director of Revenue or county prosecutor, no matter how wise or necessary we believe such officials may be to the process. To do so would be to amend the statute; that task is constitutionally left to the legislative branch.
Nevertheless, there remains the question of the Court’s jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is composed of two parts. First, it assumes the power of the court to consider the matter brought before it. Second, it includes the ability of the court to grant the relief requested by the person seeking relief. As to the latter, “if a petition wholly fails to state a cause of action, the defect is jurisdictional.” State ex rel. Fletcher v. Blair, 352 Mo. 476, 178 S.W.2d 322, 324 (1944). Rule 55.27(g)(2) therefore provides that “[a] defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” may be made by motion “on appeal.” Such a defense “calls into question the trial court's jurisdiction” and may be raised by this Court sua sponte. Commercial Bank of St. Louis County v. James, 658 S.W.2d 17, 21 (Mo. banc 1983).
Section 302.309.3 permits courts of general jurisdiction to consider petitions seeking hardship driving privileges. However, Section 302.309.3(5) expressly states:
No person is eligible to receive hardship driving privilege [sic] whose license has been suspended or revoked for the following reasons:
(a) Who ... has been convicted twice within a five-year period of violating the provisions of section 577.010, ...
Section 577.010.1, RSMo 1986, provides: “A person commits the crime of 'driving while intoxicated’ if he operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition.”
As each respondent’s petition for a hardship driving privilege shows and as the majority opinion states, each has been con*917victed of a violation of Section 577.010 at least twice within five years. Each petition fails to state a claim upon which the court can give relief. Under such circumstances, the trial court is without authority to issue the hardship driving privilege each respondent seeks. The respondent’s petitions should be dismissed.
I would reverse the judgment of each trial court and remand each case with directions to dismiss each respondent’s petition for a hardship driving privilege. Because the majority merely dismisses the appeals of the Director, thereby permitting the trial court’s grant of hardship privileges to stand, despite the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to do so, I dissent.

. The legislature amended Section 302.309 again in 1989. However, for purposes of the applications for hardship driving privilege filed by these respondents, the 1987 amendments control. The legislature did not amend Section 302.309.3(5)(a) which is at issue in this case.