STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. SHEENA DARLENE CORDELL
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1105
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Sheena Darlene Cordell was convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated (DWI) for an offense on September 20, 2012, and sentenced to four years (execution suspended) with five years' probation.
- The State introduced Defendant’s certified Missouri Department of Revenue (DOR) "Missouri Driver Record" showing prior municipal "Court Convictions" labeled "DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED."
- The trial court admitted the DOR record over Defendant’s objections and found Defendant an "aggravated offender" (three or more intoxication-related traffic offenses), elevating punishment to felony status under § 577.023.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the State failed to show the prior municipal convictions were for conduct that meets Missouri’s statutory definition of "driving while intoxicated" (i.e., physically operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated) rather than other possible municipal offenses (e.g., actual physical control).
- The only evidence of the prior offenses in the record was the certified DOR driver record; no municipal ordinances or underlying charging documents were introduced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the certified DOR driver record provided sufficient evidence that prior municipal convictions were intoxication-related traffic offenses (IRTOs) for "driving while intoxicated" as defined in §§ 577.010 and 577.001 | The DOR certified record listing prior convictions for "DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED" is circumstantial evidence sufficient for a factfinder to infer the convictions were for physically operating a vehicle while intoxicated and thus qualify as IRTOs | The record is insufficient because it does not exclude that the municipal ordinances convicted conduct other than "driving" (e.g., actual physical control) and therefore may not meet the statutory definition of DWI | Affirmed: the certified DOR record was sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer the prior convictions were for driving while intoxicated and to support aggravated-offender status |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Collins, 328 S.W.3d 705 (Mo. banc 2011) (certified DOR driver record listing prior DWI convictions establishes prior convictions for enhancement)
- State v. Rattles, 450 S.W.3d 470 (Mo. App. 2014) (2010 amendment to § 577.023.16 adds certified DOR records as authorized evidence of prior convictions)
- State v. Claycomb, 470 S.W.3d 358 (Mo. banc 2015) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence and reasonable inferences)
- State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. banc 1993) (circumstantial evidence need not be irreconcilable with innocence to sustain conviction)