State v. Davis
| Decision Date | 25 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 91368.,SC 91368. |
| Citation | 348 S.W.3d 768 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Appellant,v.Melvin Ray DAVIS, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
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.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 dismiss alleged that section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Blurton, SC 93648
...allegation of error to be preserved for appellate review, the error must be presented to or decided by the trial court. State v. Davis, 348 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Mo. banc 2011). This issue is preserved because, regardless of whether Mr. Blurton expressly offered the daughter's testimony at trial......
-
State v. Honeycutt, SC 92229.
...of § 571.010 had the practical effect of terminating the litigation and constituted a final and appealable judgment. State v. Davis, 348 S.W.3d 769, 770 n.3 (Mo. banc 2011). 5.U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 9, cl. 3 (“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”); U.S. Const. art. ......
-
State v. Collings
...the defendants received life sentences after sexually assaulting and murdering their victims. Of these five cases, only two, Greathouse and Davis, involve the sexual assault and murder of teenaged victims, and it is not apparent why the defendants in those cases were given life sentences.Co......
-
State v. Collings
...entitled to review of unpreserved claims, and generally, this Court will not review them. E.g., Cella, 32 S.W.3d at 117; State v. Davis, 348 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Mo. banc 2011). The exception is for "plain errors affecting substantial rights," which "may be considered in the discretion of the c......