Horton v. State, No. SD 33329

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtNancy Steffen Rahmeyer, J.
Citation462 S.W.3d 770
PartiesMark J. Horton, Petitioner–Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent–Respondent.
Decision Date13 April 2015
Docket NumberNo. SD 33329

462 S.W.3d 770

Mark J. Horton, Petitioner–Appellant
v.
State of Missouri, Respondent–Respondent.

No. SD 33329

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Filed: April 13, 2015


Attorney for Appellant—Carol A. Wetherell of Joplin, MO

Attorney for Respondent—Chris Koster (Attorney General) and Todd C. Lucas of Jefferson City, MO

Opinion

Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, J.

Mark J. Horton (“Petitioner”) appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for the removal of his name from Missouri's sex offender registry. We affirm the trial court's judgment because Petitioner “has been ... required” to register under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”)1 and, as a result, is required to register under Missouri's Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORA”)2 even though he may no longer be required to register under SORNA.

Facts and Procedural History

As the appellant, Petitioner had the responsibility to prepare a record on appeal that is sufficient to permit us to resolve his claim in this appeal. Rule 81.12(c)-(e);3 Hall v. Hall, 345 S.W.3d 291, 292 n.1 (Mo.App.S.D.2011). Petitioner has failed to do so. The legal file contains only a docket sheet, a one-page petition, and a one-page judgment. Only a single transcript was filed with us, and that transcript reflects a hearing at which no evidence was tendered or admitted, and the trial court's only substantive action at the hearing was to take judicial notice of state and federal statutes. No exhibits were deposited with us. We present the facts that are accepted as true by both Petitioner and the State.4

462 S.W.3d 772

These “agreed” facts are the following. In January 1996, Petitioner entered an Alford plea of guilty to the class A misdemeanor of sexual abuse in the second degree for conduct that occurred in 1993 in Newton County in violation of section 566.110, RSMo Cum.Supp.1990.5 At the time of the offense, Petitioner was older than twenty and Petitioner's victim was thirteen. Petitioner's misdemeanor offense caused him to be “a tier I sex offender” under SORNA.

In addition, the record shows that, on December 11, 2013, in Newton County, Petitioner filed a petition to remove his name from the “sexual offender registry.” Among other facts alleged in the petition are that Petitioner “has duly registered” and “[u]nder Section 16915(a)(1) of SORNA (42 U.S.C. § 16915 ), [Petitioner] no longer has a duty to register.” The trial court held a hearing on February 14, 2014. At the hearing, the trial court expressed the view that “[i]t's a legal issue, not factual,” and counsel for Petitioner responded “[a]ll right. That sounds good.” No evidence was tendered or admitted at the hearing, and the trial court's only substantive action at the hearing was to take judicial notice of state and federal statutes. The trial court denied Petitioner's petition on April 2, 2014.

Analysis

In his sole point relied on, Petitioner claims that the trial court erred in denying his petition to remove his name from Missouri's sex offender registry because Missouri's Sex Offender Registration Act does not apply to Petitioner's pre–2000 plea to a misdemeanor, and because Petitioner is a “federal tier I sex offender” and “may be removed from the registry 15 years after” his plea. We deny Petitioner's point because it ignores well-established Missouri law.

In reviewing a court-tried case, we will:

affirm the trial court's judgment unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law. [Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) ]. The interpretation and application of a statute to a given set of facts is a question of law we review de novo, giving no deference to the trial court's conclusions. See Otte v. Edwards, 370 S.W.3d 898, 900 (Mo.App.E.D.2012).

Solomon v. St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, 409 S.W.3d 487, 489 (Mo.App.E.D.2013).

Petitioner is correct that SORA does not require him to register as a sex offender based solely on his pre–2000 plea to a misdemeanor because (1) SORA did not require registration for a misdemeanor until August 28, 2000, and (2) Missouri's constitutional prohibition on laws enacted by the state being “retrospective in [their] operation” prevents SORA from applying retroactively to Petitioner's pre–2000, misdemeanor

462 S.W.3d 773

plea. Doe v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d 719, 720 (Mo. banc 2009) (“On August 28, 2000, [SORA] was amended to require registration for misdemeanor offenses under chapter 566.”); Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 833, 849–53 (Mo. banc 2006) (SORA cannot be applied to “those persons who were convicted or pled guilty prior to” SORA's effective date because of Missouri's constitutional prohibition of “laws [that are] retrospective in their operation”); Doe v. Blunt, 225 S.W.3d 421 (Mo. banc 2007) (applied Phillips to an amendment of SORA that added an offense to those offenses requiring registration).

However, SORA also requires a person to register as a sex offender who “has been or is required to register under ... federal ... law.” Section 589.400.1(7), RSMo Cum.Supp.2008; Doe v. Toelke, 389 S.W.3d 165, 167 (Mo. banc 2012). The federal Sex Offender Registration and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Smith v. St. Louis Cnty. Police, ED109734
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 7 d2 Junho d2 2022
    ...requirements of [MO-]SORA are lifetime registration requirements, unless … narrow criteria are met." Id. at *4 (quoting Horton v. State, 462 S.W.3d 770, 774 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015)). Although, MacColl is still subject to a motion for rehearing or transfer as of the date we decide this case, it......
  • Aames v. United States, No. 16-00255-CV-W-FJG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • 17 d5 Março d5 2017
    ...the chief law officers of their county of residence in Missouri. Keeney v. Fitch, 458 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Mo.App. 2015). In Horton v. State, 462 S.W.3d 770 (Mo.App. 2015), the Court stated:The interplay between the federal registration requirements pursuant to SORNA and Missouri's registration......
  • Wilkerson v. State, WD 79996
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 3 d2 Outubro d2 2017
    ...as a sex offender [under federal law] and, therefore, is required to register pursuant to" § 589.400.1(7)); accord, Horton v. State, 462 S.W.3d 770, 773 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015) ; Solomon v. St. Charles Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney's Office, 409 S.W.3d 487, 489-90 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). The Court ......
  • MacColl v. Mo. State Highway Patrol & Boone Cnty., WD84739
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 3 d2 Maio d2 2022
    ...85, 88 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (citing 72 Fed.Reg. 8894 (Feb. 28, 2007) and 73 Fed.Reg. 38, 030 (July 2, 2008)); see also Horton v. State, 462 S.W.3d 770, 773 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015) ("SORNA has applied to persons who pled guilty before its enactment since at least August 1, 2008, following the U......
4 cases
  • Smith v. St. Louis Cnty. Police, ED109734
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 7 d2 Junho d2 2022
    ...requirements of [MO-]SORA are lifetime registration requirements, unless … narrow criteria are met." Id. at *4 (quoting Horton v. State, 462 S.W.3d 770, 774 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015)). Although, MacColl is still subject to a motion for rehearing or transfer as of the date we decide this case, it......
  • Aames v. United States, No. 16-00255-CV-W-FJG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • 17 d5 Março d5 2017
    ...the chief law officers of their county of residence in Missouri. Keeney v. Fitch, 458 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Mo.App. 2015). In Horton v. State, 462 S.W.3d 770 (Mo.App. 2015), the Court stated:The interplay between the federal registration requirements pursuant to SORNA and Missouri's registration......
  • Wilkerson v. State, WD 79996
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 3 d2 Outubro d2 2017
    ...as a sex offender [under federal law] and, therefore, is required to register pursuant to" § 589.400.1(7)); accord, Horton v. State, 462 S.W.3d 770, 773 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015) ; Solomon v. St. Charles Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney's Office, 409 S.W.3d 487, 489-90 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). The Court ......
  • MacColl v. Mo. State Highway Patrol & Boone Cnty., WD84739
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 3 d2 Maio d2 2022
    ...85, 88 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (citing 72 Fed.Reg. 8894 (Feb. 28, 2007) and 73 Fed.Reg. 38, 030 (July 2, 2008)); see also Horton v. State, 462 S.W.3d 770, 773 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015) ("SORNA has applied to persons who pled guilty before its enactment since at least August 1, 2008, following the U......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT