of acquittal on the charge of failure to maintain financial responsibility and entering judgment on the jury’s verdict because violation of section 303.025 does not constitute a criminal offense in that the applicable statutes do not provide criminal penalties for violation of section 303.025. The record reveals that defendant failed to raise this issue before, during, or after trial. No reference to this issue appears in his motion for new trial. Although we may review for plain error under Rule 30.20 if manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted from a ruling affecting substantial rights, we decline to do so here because we do not find defendant’s argument to have merit. See sections 303.025 and 303.370.5; cf. State v. Mayo, 915 S.W.2d 758, 762-63 (Mo.banc 1996) (<HOLDING>). Point denied. Judgment affirmed. KATHIANNE
holding revocation of appellants medical license not barred by previous acquittal on charge of criminal abortion even though criminal charge was basis of license revocation proceeding holding that suspension of a drivers license for conduct already sanctioned in a criminal case did not violate defendants constitutional rights against double jeopardy because it served a remedial purpose beyond the criminal penalties holding that age disclosed on a drivers license constituted an admission where the party swore to the truth of the statements made in the license application holding that the suspension or revocation of a drivers license is not a sanction which once imposed precludes the application of criminal sanctions holding that a sanction which constitutes the revocation of a privilege voluntarily granted is characteristically free of the punitive criminal element