fact issues upon which -no specific findings are made shall be considered as having been found in accordance with the result reached.” Rule 73.01(c); see Harvey v. Dir. of Revenue, 371 S.W.3d 824, 828 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (en banc). Furthermore, “[w]e will affirm the trial court’s judgment on any basis supported.by the record.” Harvey, 371 S.W.3d at 828 (quoting Hirsch v. Ebinger, 334 S.W.3d 695, 697 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011)). The record indicates that Trooper Bra-zas asked Allison repeatedly' to respond, “yes” or “no,” to whether she would S.D. 1998) (finding a voluntary refusal to take a breath test where the driver “continued to respond with the words ‘no comment’ after being told that would be considered a refusal”); Beach v. Dir. of Revenue, 188 S.W.3d 492, 496 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (<HOLDING>). Allison disagrees. She argues that several
holding that a refusal to sign an implied consent form is not a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test for purposes of section 1547 holding that a qualified or conditional consent is tantamount to a refusal except where a driver qualifies a refusal on his having an opportunity to contact an attorney holding that refusal to consent to search cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion holding refusal to sign hospital waiver of liability form is not a refusal under section 1547 holding that the defendants due process rights were violated by refusal to allow him to contact counsel after he was given misleading information on consequences of refusal to take bloodalcohol test