Smith v. St. Louis Cnty. Police
| Decision Date | 31 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | SC99715,SC99714 |
| Parties | BROCK SMITH, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE, ET AL., Respondents. and GARY NELSON FORD, Appellant, v. COL. JON BELMAR, CHIEF OF POLICE AS CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, PURSUANT TO COUNTY CHARTER, AND MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ANDJIM BUCKLES, SHERIFF OFST. LOUIS COUNTY AS "CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL" AS DEFINED BY RSMO 589.404(3), Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, The Honorable Virginia W. Lay, Judge.
Brock Smith appeals a St. Louis County circuit court's judgment denying his petition for removal from the Missouri sex offender registry. Smith argues, because he is a tier I sex offender, § 589.400.1(7)[1] does not mandate he remain on the Missouri sex offender registry for his lifetime. The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.
Gary Nelson Ford appeals a St. Louis County circuit court's judgment denying his petition for removal from the Missouri sex offender registry. Ford argues the circuit court misstated and misapplied the law in concluding he must remain on the Missouri sex offender registry for his lifetime. The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.
In May 2005, the State charged Smith with the offense of "sexual misconduct in the first degree." On December 18, 2005, Smith pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct in the first degree, pursuant to § 566.090, RSMo Supp 2004, as charged. The circuit court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for two years, which Smith successfully completed. As a result of his guilty plea Smith registered as a sex offender pursuant to the Missouri Sex Offender Registration Act, §§ 589.400, et seq. ("MO-SORA"), within the time period prescribed.
On January 20, 2021, Smith filed a petition for removal from the sex offender registry, pursuant to § 589.401. Smith alleged he is a tier I sex offender and is entitled to removal from the registry because he satisfied all registration requirements and more than 10 years had passed since he was required to register. The State denied Smith's allegations and requested his petition be dismissed. At a hearing on the petition, the State's sole objection was that, pursuant to § 589.400.1(7), Smith was not permitted to have his name removed from the Missouri sex offender registry because he is required to register under the separate requirements of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 34 U.S.C. §§ 20901, et seq. ("SORNA"). The circuit court denied Smith's petition. The circuit court concluded MO-SORA, specifically § 589.400.1(7), requires lifetime registration for anyone who has ever had to register in Missouri for an offense that required registration under SORNA.
Smith appealed, and the court of appeals reversed. This Court granted transfer and has jurisdiction. Mo. Const. art. V, § 10.
In January 2004, the circuit court convicted Ford, after he pleaded guilty, to three counts of child molestation in the second degree for subjecting a minor to sexual contact, pursuant to § 566.068, RSMo 2000. Ford's conviction renders him a tier I sex offender subject to a 15-year registration period. Ford was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to MO-SORA, and he has been registered in Missouri since 2004.
In December 2018, Ford filed a petition for removal from the sex offender registry. Ford alleged that, as a tier I offender, he was eligible for removal from the Missouri registry, pursuant to § 589.401. The Missouri State Highway Patrol and other defendants argued solely that, pursuant to § 589.400.1(7), Ford was not entitled to have his name removed from the Missouri sex offender registry because of his separate obligation to register under SORNA. Ford does not dispute that he had previously been required to register under SORNA. The circuit court denied Ford's petition for removal. The circuit court concluded that MO-SORA, specifically § 589.400.1(7), requires lifetime registration for anyone who has ever had to register in Missouri for an offense that required registration under SORNA.
Ford appealed, and the court of appeals reversed. This Court granted transfer and has jurisdiction. Mo. Const. art. V, § 10.
When reviewing a court-tried case, this Court will affirm the circuit court's judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
"This Court's primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute at issue." Parktown Imps., Inc. v. Audi of Am., Inc., 278 S.W.3d 670, 672 (Mo. banc 2009). "If the intent of the legislature is clear and unambiguous, by giving the language used in the statute its plain and ordinary meaning, then [this Court is] bound by that intent and cannot resort to any statutory construction in interpreting the statute." Goerlitz v. City of Maryville, 333 S.W.3d 450, 455 (Mo. banc 2011). "Courts look elsewhere for interpretation only when the meaning is ambiguous or would lead to an illogical result defeating the purpose of the legislature." Spradlin v. City of Fulton, 982 S.W.2d 255, 258 (Mo. banc 1998).
"[A] court must presume that the legislature acted with a full awareness and complete knowledge of the present state of the law." State v. Rumble, 680 S.W.2d 939, 942 (Mo. banc 1984). "Accordingly, when the legislature amends a statute, we presume the legislature intended to change the existing law." State ex rel. T.J. v. Cundiff, 632 S.W.3d 353, 357 (Mo. banc 2021). "In determining legislative intent, no portion of a statute is read in isolation, but rather is read in context to the entire statute, harmonizing all provisions." Aquila Foreign Qualifications Corp. v. Dir. of Revenue, 362 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Mo. banc 2012).
[W]here a statute is amended only in part, or as respects only certain isolated and integral sections thereof and the remaining sections or parts of the statute are allowed and left to stand unamended, unchanged, and apparently unaffected by the amendatory act or acts, it is presumed that the Legislature intended the unamended and unchanged sections or parts of the original statute to remain operative and effective, as before the enactment of the amendatory act.
Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, State of Mo., 639 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Mo. 1982) (alteration in original).
Smith argues the circuit court erred in denying his petition for removal from the Missouri sex offender registry because he is a tier 1 sex offender and § 589.400.1(7) does not mandate he register as a sex offender in Missouri for his lifetime. Ford argues the circuit court erred in denying his petition for removal from the Missouri sex offender registry because (1) § 589.401 provides the right to seek removal from the Missouri sex offender registry; (2) the circuit court misstated and misapplied the law; and (3) § 589.400.1(7) does not mandate he register as a sex offender in Missouri for his lifetime. This Court finds both cases were correctly resolved by the circuit court's proper application of § 589.400.1(7).[2]
In 1994, Missouri enacted MO-SORA. See §§ 566.600, et seq., RSMo 1994. MO-SORA sets forth the requirements to register as a sex offender. § 589.400. Section 589.400.1(7) imposes a registration requirement in Missouri for "[a]ny person who is a resident of this state who . . . has been or is required to register under tribal, federal, or military law[.]"[3] (Emphasis added). "The purpose of [MO-SORA], and of similar acts in other states, is to protect children from violence at the hands of sex offenders and to respond to the known danger of recidivism among sex offenders." Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 833, 839 (Mo. banc 2006) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Since 1994, Congress has required each state to maintain a federally compliant sex offender registration program to receive federal funding. In 2006, Congress enacted SORNA. 34 U.S.C. §§ 20901, et seq.[4] SORNA sought to make the various state programs more comprehensive, effective, and uniform. In pertinent part, SORNA provides, "A sex offender shall register, and keep the registration current, in each jurisdiction where the offender resides[.]" 34 U.S.C. § 20913(a). A "sex offender" is "an individual who was convicted of a sex offense." Id. § 20911(1). A "sex offense" includes, among other things, "a criminal offense that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another" and "a criminal offense that is a specified offense against a minor." Id. § 20911(5)(A)(i), (ii). A "specified offense against a minor" includes, among other things, "[c]riminal sexual conduct involving a minor" and "[a]ny conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor." Id. § 20911(7)(H), (I). SORNA divides sex offenders into three categories, based on the severity of the offense: tier I, tier II, and tier III. Id. § 20911(2)-(4). Tier I offenders are required to register for 15 years, tier II offenders are required to register for 25 years, and tier III offenders are required to register for their lifetimes. Id. § 20915(a)(1)-(3). In 2008, SORNA was applied to all sex offenders, including individuals who committed a sex offense prior to July 20, 2006. See Doe v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d 719, 720 (Mo. banc 2009).
In 2018, the General Assembly amended MO-SORA and made several substantive changes. It added a list of crimes exempt from registration. § 589.400.9. It divided sex offenders into three tiers, based on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial