S.E., Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ST LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ST LOUIS COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT TOWN AND COUNTRY POLICE DEPARTMENT TOWN AND COUNTRY MUNICIPAL COURT TOWN AND COUNTRY MUNICIPAL COURT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY MELISSA SMITH ST LOUIS COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL CRIMINAL RECORDS REPOSITORY (2026)

Introduction

S.E.¹ (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment granting her petition for expungement in part pursuant to Section 610.140 RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2025).² We reverse and remand, ordering the trial court to grant her petition for expungement in full.

Background

The facts in this matter are not in dispute. On March 26, 2008, Appellant was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) and improper lane use in Town and Country. Pursuant to negotiations with the prosecutor, Appellant pled guilty to the amended charges of careless and imprudent driving (C&I) and illegal parking in the Town and County municipal court on June 11, 2008. She received a suspended imposition of sentence on the C&I with one year of bench probation with the condition she complete Substance Awareness Traffic Offender Program (SATOP) and was fined $300 on the illegal parking charge. Appellant completed all conditions of her guilty plea on June 12, 2009.

On March 24, 2025, Appellant filed a petition for expungement (Petition) in the St. Louis County Circuit Court and properly named all respondents. She requested expungement of all records “pertaining to her guilty plea [of C&I and illegal parking] in the Town & Country Municipal Court case[s]” to include driving records and “any records pertaining to a chemical action or administrative alcohol suspensions”³ based on the charges from the March 26, 2008 arrest for DWI and improper lane use.

The trial court deemed Appellant eligible for expungement and granted her Petition in part, ordering Town and Country to expunge records pertaining to her guilty plea to C&I and illegal parking. But the court dismissed her request for Respondents to close any records pertaining to “her DWI arrest, charge, driving record, and administrative alcohol suspension action stemming from the DWI arrest of March 26, 2008,” finding Section 610.140 inapplicable to intoxication-related traffic offense records. This appeal follows.

Discussion

Appellant raises two points on appeal, both alleging the trial court erred in ordering Respondents not to close the records relating to Appellant's DWI and DOR proceedings. Appellant contends the trial court's order fails to comply with the statute because if the court finds a person eligible for expungement then Respondents must close all records in their possession, including all records pertaining to DWI and administrative alcohol suspension. We agree and because these points are closely related we review them together.

Standard of Review

The trial court's application of the relevant expungement statutory requirements is a question of law rather than of fact; thus, our review is de novo. Doe v. Mo. State Hwy. Patrol Crim. Records Repository, 474 S.W.3d 171, 174 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).

Analysis

This is a case of first impression regarding the applicability of Missouri's general expungement statute, Section 610.140. Appellant argues her eligibility mandates the arrest, initial charge for DWI, and administrative alcohol suspension must also be expunged as were her convictions of the ordinance violations. Respondents do not appeal from the trial court's finding Appellant eligible for expungement for her guilty plea to the amended charge of C&I.⁴ We hold the court's failure to comply with the plain language of Section 610.140 and expunge all records relating to Appellant's negotiated plea agreement with Town and Country to the amended charges is reversible error.

The construction and application of the expungement statute is the sole issue for our de novo review. “When interpreting a statute, ‘the primary rule is to effectuate legislative intent through reference to the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language.’ ” D.B. v. Mo. State Hwy. Patrol Crim. Just. Info. Servs., 697 S.W.3d 58, 63 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) (quoting N.M.C. v. Mo. State Hwy. Patrol Crim. Records Repository, 661 S.W.3d 18, 23 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023)). “The legislature is presumed to have intended every word, provision, sentence, and clause in a statute to be given effect.” State ex. rel. Goldsworthy v. Kanatzar, 543 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Mo. banc 2018) (internal citation omitted).

Expungements of certain criminal records are governed by Missouri's statutes, Section 610.130 to 610.145. Section 610.130 provides the statutory framework for expungement for “intoxication-related traffic offense[s].”⁵ Section 610.140 independently provides for expungement of other crimes, so long as the crimes are not excluded in Section 610.140.3, which does not include Appellant's guilty plea to an amended charge of C&I as negotiated with the prosecutor in the Town and County municipal court. We agree with the trial court this plea renders her eligible for expungement pursuant to Section 610.140.

In negotiating a plea agreement with Appellant, the state refrained from convicting Appellant of DWI, which is subject to the more stringent standards for expungement of records under Section 610.130.2. Instead, the state elected to proceed on an amended charge to C&I, which falls within the purview of Section 610.140, which permits a person to apply for an expungement of “records of such arrest, plea, trial, or conviction.” Section 610.140.2.

Section 610.140.8 specifically states:

In all cases under this section, the court shall issue an order of expungement or dismissal within six months of the filing of the petition․ and, upon receipt of the order, each entity shall close any record in its possession relating to any crime listed in the petition, in the manner established by section 610.120. The records and files maintained in any administrative or court proceeding in a municipal, associate, or circuit court for any crime ordered expunged under this section shall be confidential ․

(Emphasis added). Notably, subsection 9 also requires the following:

The order shall not limit any of the petitioner's rights that were restricted as a collateral consequence of such person's criminal record, and such rights shall be restored upon issuance of the order of expungement. Except as otherwise provided under this section, the effect of such order shall be to fully restore the civil rights of such person to the status he or she occupied prior to such arrests, pleas, trials, or convictions as if such events had never taken place.

Section 610.140.9 (emphasis added).

We find the plain and ordinary meaning of Sections 610.140.8 and .9 require the expungement of “all records and files” “relating to any crime listed in the petition,” including arrest, charges, and administrative proceedings which result in a plea to a crime or offense listed in an expungement petition, to “fully restore [one's] civil rights.” See D.B., 697 S.W.3d at 63 (quoting N.M.C., 661 S.W.3d at 23) (primary rule of statutory construction is “to effectuate legislative intent through reference to the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language”); see also, S.S. v. Mitchell, 289 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (prior expungement statute Section 577.054 authorizes expungement of all records of a driver's administrative alcohol suspension along with DWI).

The Missouri expungement statutes do not permit the parsing of the underlying DWI and DOR proceedings in the expungement of the C&I guilty plea. Indeed these statutes mandate full expungement to achieve their purpose to provide a second chance to individuals with prior criminal offenses but who have shown they have rehabilitated themselves and deserve the second chance provided for in the statute. M.T.M. v. St. Louis City Circuit Court, 717 S.W.3d 844, 847 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025) (quoting R.G. v. Missouri State Hwy. Patrol, 580 S.W.3d 38, 41-42 (Mo. App. 2019). As a result, because Appellant's C&I plea is eligible for expungement, all her DWI and administrative proceedings must also be expunged in order to “fully restore [her] civil rights ․ to the status ․ she occupied prior to such arrests, pleas, trials or convictions as if such events had never taken place.” Section 610.140.9.

Finally, we are compelled to point out the absurd result of the full expungement benefit conferred by Section 610.130 for those who plead guilty to or are convicted of an alcohol-related offense when Section 610.140 does not provide the same relief to those who enter a negotiated guilty plea with the prosecutor to a different charge. See State ex rel. Hillman v. Beger, 566 S.W.3d 600, 608 (Mo. banc 2019) (internal quotation omitted) (construction of statutory scheme “should avoid unreasonable or absurd results”).

Appellant's first and second points are granted.

Conclusion

We reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to expunge all records pertaining to the DWI and administrative proceedings as pled in Appellant's Petition.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We refer to this party by initials to protect the identity of the party, which follows the spirit of the expungement statute. R.M.S. v. Lafayette Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney, 696 S.W.3d 401, 402 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024).

2.   All statutory references are to RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2025), unless otherwise indicated.

3.   The record on appeal is silent as to the specific Department of Revenue (DOR) proceedings Appellant was seeking to expunge.

4.   In its response brief and contrary to the trial court finding, Town and Country claims “records for alcohol-related offenses for which the Appellant seeks expungement are not permitted under [Section] 610.140, RSMo.” If error, the proper remedy is to challenge whether the plea it negotiated with Appellant is eligible for expungement pursuant to Section 610.140. Not only did Town and Country elect not to appeal, but instead at oral argument conceded Appellant's eligibility. See State v. Lucas, 452 S.W.3d 641, 643 n.3 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (citing Brunig v. Humburg, 957 S.W.2d 345, 347 n.2 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997), and Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.13 (2026) (declining sua sponte review of a statutory issue not raised because “[i]ssues not raised on appeal are considered waived”).

5.   Section 610.130.1 permits expungement only to a person “who has pleaded guilty or has been convicted for a first intoxication-related traffic offense.” When a defendant “has pleaded guilty or has been convicted” of a different violation, such as C&I, pursuant to a negotiated agreement with the state, Section 610.130 is inapplicable because it is no longer an “intoxication-related traffic offense.” Bright v. Ray, 520 S.W.3d 482, 486-88 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).

Lisa P. Page, Judge

Robert M. Clayton III, Presiding Judge and Michael E. Gardner, Judge, concur.