concerning Howdeshell’s failure of the field sobriety tests. Since Exhibit 1 was the only evidence introduced at the hearing, Howdeshell also failed to controvert this evidence via the direct or cross-examination testimony of any witness. The incomplete nature of Exhibit 1 was significant only if the facts contained in the remainder of the exhibit were insufficient to establish the Director’s prima facie case. See Routt v. Director of Revenue, 180 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Mo.App.2006) (although one page of the officer’s narrative report was missing, there was still sufficient evidence in the rest of the exhibit to support a finding that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe Routt was driving while intoxicated); Melvin v. Director of Revenue, 130 S.W.3d 11, 15 (Mo.App. 2004) (<HOLDING>); Marsey v. Director of Revenue, 19 S.W.3d 176,
holding that where trial court erred in applying established law to the facts of the case it must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing to give the trial court an opportunity to address the issue holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that the trial court erred in ruling for driver because the directors records were incomplete the missing pages were not necessary for the trial court to find that probable cause existed based on the uncontroverted facts contained in the officers narrative report holding trial court erred in finding violations based only on officers testimony based on review of probation records where states failure to admit records into evidence rendered officers testimony hearsay holding that a trial court order reaching the right result with erroneous or incomplete reasoning can be affirmed under the tipsy coachman doctrine so long as the alternative ruling is supported by the record before the trial court