Horton v. State
Decision Date | 13 April 2015 |
Docket Number | No. SD 33329,SD 33329 |
Citation | 462 S.W.3d 770 |
Parties | Mark J. Horton, Petitioner–Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent–Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Attorney for Appellant—Carol A. Wetherell of Joplin, MO
Attorney for Respondent—Chris Koster (Attorney General) and Todd C. Lucas of Jefferson City, MO
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.
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
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 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.
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 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 Notification Act (effective July 27, 2006) imposes an independent, federally mandated registration requirement that is not subject to Missouri's constitutional ban on state laws that operate retrospectively. Doe v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d at 720 ; Roe v. Replogle, 408 S.W.3d 759, 767–69 (Mo. banc 2013). Further, SORNA has applied to persons who pled guilty before its enactment since at least August 1, 2008, following the United States Attorney General's issuance of final guidelines. Vaughan v. Missouri Department of Corrections, 385 S.W.3d 465, 468 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) ; United States v. Whitlow, 714 F.3d 41 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 287, 187 L.Ed.2d 207 (2013) ; see also Doe v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d at 720 (); Roe v. Replogle, 408 S.W.3d at 768 () .
As a tier I sex offender under SORNA, Petitioner was required to “keep his registration current for” fifteen years “unless ... allowed a reduction.” 42 U.S.C. § 16915(a)(1). If allowed, the reduction for a tier I sex offender is five years. 42 U.S.C. § 16915(b)(3)(A). The record does not contain any evidence that Petitioner ever sought or was “allowed” a reduction. As a result, at a minimum, Petitioner was required to register as a sex offender under SORNA from at least August 1, 2008 to January 2011, when his fifteen year registration period expired. Inasmuch as Petitioner “has been” required to register under federal law, he now is required to register in Missouri under SORA even though he may no longer be required to register under federal law. Toelke, 389 S.W.3d at 167. As the Eastern District recently summarized in the context of a defendant's guilty plea to a misdemeanor in April 1996:
Solomon, 409 S.W.3d at 489–90 ; see also Doe v. Replogle, 445 S.W.3d 573, 575–76 (Mo.App.S.D.2013), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2853, 189 L.Ed.2d 809 (2014) ( ). Petitioner does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aames v. United States
...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......
-
MacColl v. Mo. State Highway Patrol
...retrospective as applied to require state registration based solely on a pre-2000 misdemeanor plea. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d at 852; Horton, 462 S.W.3d at 772; Petrovick, S.W.3d at 390. Hence, MacColl is correct MO-SORA does not require her to register based solely on her 1995 misdemeanor plea.......
-
Wilkerson v. State
...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.
..."The registration requirements of [MO-]SORA are lifetime registration requirements, unless . . . narrow criteria are met." Horton, 462 S.W.3d at 774 (quoting Solomon St. Charles Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney's Off., 409 S.W.3d 487, 490 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013)). As the Southern District explained ......