State v. Davis, No. SC 91368.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtPATRICIA BRECKENRIDGE, Judge.
Citation348 S.W.3d 768
Docket NumberNo. SC 91368.
Decision Date25 October 2011
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Appellant,v.Melvin Ray DAVIS, Respondent.

348 S.W.3d 768

STATE of Missouri, Appellant,
v.
Melvin Ray DAVIS, Respondent.

No. SC 91368.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

Aug. 30, 2011.Rehearing Denied Oct. 25, 2011.


[348 S.W.3d 768]

Daniel N. McPherson, Attorney General's Office, Jefferson City, MO, for Appellant.Ruth K. Russell, Public Defender's Office, Springfield, MO, for Respondent.PATRICIA BRECKENRIDGE, Judge.

The state filed a felony complaint charging Melvin Ray Davis, a registered sex offender, with one count of violating section 566.150, 1 for knowingly being present within 500 feet of a public park that contains playground equipment or a public swimming pool. He moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that section 566.150 was unconstitutional as applied to him because it violated the prohibition against retrospective laws in article I, section 15 of the Missouri Constitution. The trial court dismissed the complaint against Mr. Davis.

The state appeals. The state claims that the trial court erred in dismissing the

[348 S.W.3d 769]

complaint because the prohibition against retrospective laws applies only to civil statutes and not to criminal statutes. It further asserts that because section 566.150 is criminal in nature, this section cannot be retrospective in operation. Because this issue is raised for the first time on appeal, it is not preserved for appellate review. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
Factual and Procedural Background

On May 17, 1983, Mr. Davis pleaded guilty to one count of sexual abuse, pursuant to section 566.100, RSMo 1978. Due to this conviction, the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16913 (2006), required Mr. Davis to register as a sex offender.2 In 2009, Missouri's legislature enacted section 566.150, which makes it a crime for a registered sex offender to “knowingly be present in or loiter within five hundred feet of any real property comprising any public park with playground equipment or a public swimming pool.” On June 17, 2010, a park ranger apprehended Mr. Davis and another man for drinking alcohol in a city park in violation of a Springfield municipal ordinance. After the park ranger ran the men's names through local law enforcement communication systems, he arrested Mr. Davis, a registered sex offender, for knowingly being present within 500 feet of Grant Beach Park, a public park that contains playground equipment and a public swimming pool.

In August 2010, the state filed a felony complaint against Mr. Davis charging him with violating section 566.150, which is a class D felony. Mr. Davis moved to dismiss the complaint against him. The motion to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • State v. Pennell, No. ED 97678.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 30, 2013
    ...trial. Again, because this point is not preserved for appellate review, we review it [399 S.W.3d 89]only for plain error. State v. Davis, 348 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Mo. banc 2011). The rule of corpus delecti bars the admission of extrajudicial confessions by a defendant absent independent proof o......
  • Edwards v. State, No. ED 109467
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 14, 2021
    ...objection which were urged in the trial court, without change and without addition, will be considered on appeal." State v. Davis , 348 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting State v. Thomas , 969 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) ). In other words, "[a] point on appeal must ......
  • State v. Rinehart, No. SD 34828
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 17, 2018
    ...464 S.W.3d 292, 296 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (internal quotation and citation omitted).6 See Hunt , 451 S.W.3d at 260, 264 ; State v. Davis , 348 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Mo. banc 2011) (An appellate court "is merely a court of review to determine whether the rulings of the trial court, as there p......
  • State v. Carter, No. SC 93333.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 10, 2013
    ...before the trial court, and reviewing courts generally will not consider arguments not presented to the trial court. See State v. Davis, 348 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Mo. banc 2011). Second, even if the argument had been properly raised, being familiar with an area, regardless of the area's racial c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • State v. Pennell, No. ED 97678.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 30, 2013
    ...trial. Again, because this point is not preserved for appellate review, we review it [399 S.W.3d 89]only for plain error. State v. Davis, 348 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Mo. banc 2011). The rule of corpus delecti bars the admission of extrajudicial confessions by a defendant absent independent proof o......
  • Edwards v. State, No. ED 109467
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 14, 2021
    ...objection which were urged in the trial court, without change and without addition, will be considered on appeal." State v. Davis , 348 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting State v. Thomas , 969 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) ). In other words, "[a] point on appeal must ......
  • State v. Rinehart, No. SD 34828
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 17, 2018
    ...464 S.W.3d 292, 296 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (internal quotation and citation omitted).6 See Hunt , 451 S.W.3d at 260, 264 ; State v. Davis , 348 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Mo. banc 2011) (An appellate court "is merely a court of review to determine whether the rulings of the trial court, as there p......
  • State v. Carter, No. SC 93333.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 10, 2013
    ...before the trial court, and reviewing courts generally will not consider arguments not presented to the trial court. See State v. Davis, 348 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Mo. banc 2011). Second, even if the argument had been properly raised, being familiar with an area, regardless of the area's racial c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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