State v. Holden

• Decision Date: 17 March 2009
• Docket Number: No. SC 89635.,SC 89635.
• Citation: 278 S.W.3d 674
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. William D. HOLDEN, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

278 S.W.3d 674

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v.William D. HOLDEN, Appellant.

No. SC 89635.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

March 17, 2009.

Irene Karms, Office of Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.

Chris Koster, Atty. Gen., Shaun J. Mackelprang, Daniel N. McPherson, Office of Missouri Atty. Gen., Johnny Richardson, Gregory Mitchell, Brydon Swearengen & England, P.C., Jefferson City, MO, Anthony Soukenik, Keith D. Price, Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.

WILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR., Judge.

William Holden pled guilty to two counts of sodomy with a child under the age of fourteen years in 1995.When Holden was released in 2001, he began complying with the registration requirements for sexual offenders pursuant to sections 589.400¹et seq.In 2007, Holden was charged with failing to register a change of address within ten days pursuant to section 589.414.²The jury found Holden guilty, and Holden was sentenced to four years.

Holden appeals this judgment and argues that section 589.414 is unconstitutional as a retrospective law because he committed the underlying offense prior to the effective date of the statute.He further argues that the state failed to disclose twenty-three registration forms in violation of Rule 25.03(c)andBrady v. Maryland,373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215(1963).Lastly, Holden argues that the trial court erred in admitting the initial registration form without redacting the victim's age as well as in permitting the state to reference the victim's age during cross-examination.Because Holden challenges the validity of a statute, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Mo. Const. art. V, § 3.

Section 589.414 is constitutional.It does not operate retrospectively as to those who committed offenses prior to the effective date so long as the plea or conviction occurred after the effective date of the statute.The non-disclosure of the registration forms did not violate Brady or Rule 25.03(c).Further, there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of the registration form with the victim's age, and the reference to the victim's age during cross-examination did not result in manifest injustice.The judgment is affirmed.

I.Facts

In March 1995, William Holden pled guilty in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis to two counts of sodomy with a child under the age of fourteen years.The underlying conduct occurred on April 26, 1994.In May 2001, Holden was released from custody, moved to Hannibal and registered with the Marion County sheriff's department as a sex offender.Holden signed the registration form, which contained the requirements to register every ninety days and to notify the sheriff's department within ten days of any change of address.

Between 2001 and 2007, Holden continued to register every ninety days.When registering in May 2007, Holden reported a change of address to 2815 Marion Street in Hannibal.In August 2007, Holden informed the sheriff's office that he moved out of his residence two weeks earlier.Holden stated that he had moved from 2815 Marion Street to 725 Bridge Street over a month ago because of unsanitary conditions, had since left 725 Bridge Street, and was currently living in his car near the river.He acknowledged signing the May 2007 registration form but stated that he was unaware of the ten-day requirement for reporting a change of address.

Holden was arrested, and the state filed a petition against him for failure to register within ten days of a change of address as required by section 589.414.A preliminary hearing was held, and the trial date was set for March 2008.

In December 2007, Holden filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that section 589.414 is unconstitutional because the underlying acts occurred prior to the effective date of section 589.414.The court overruled this motion.Prior to trial, Holden filed a motion to reconsider this motion as well as six other motions, one of which asked the court to preclude the state from entering details of Holden's underlying sexual offense.When arguing the motion, counsel specifically asked the court to redact the victim's age from the initial registration form.The court overruled these motions.

A jury trial was held on March 13, 2008.The state admitted into evidence two registration forms: the initial form signed in May 2001 and the most recent form signed in May 2007.Both of these forms contained the ten-day requirement for notification after a change of address.Holden renewed the objection to the victim's age appearing on the form.

Holden called two witnesses, whose testimony addressed the living conditions on Marion Street, and he also testified in his own defense.On cross-examination, the state asked Holden about his prior conviction; specifically, whether he had pled guilty to sodomizing a victim who was five years old.Holden's counsel objected on the basis that the question previously had been asked and answered.

The case was submitted to the jury, which found Holden guilty of failing to notify the sheriff's office within ten days of changing residences as required by section 589.414.1.Holden filed a motion for new trial, arguing that section 589.414 was unconstitutional and that the trial court erred in permitting the state to present evidence of the victim's specific age.The motion was amended to include a discovery violation and Brady violation for non-disclosure of the additional twenty-three registration forms that Holden had completed.The trial court overruled the motion, and Holden appeals.

II.Analysis

A.Constitutional Validity of Section 589.414

Sections 583.400 to 583.425 became effective January 1, 1995.The law set forth the registration requirements for certain offenders as provided in section 589.400, which includes:

Any person who, since July 1, 1979, has been or is hereafter convicted of, been found guilty of, or pled guilty to committing, or attempting to commit, an offense in chapter 566, RSMo; ...

Section 589.414, RSMoSupp.2006, provides the registrant's duties on change of address, stating that:

[i]f any person required by sections 589.400 to 589.425 to register changes residence or address within the same county or city not within a county as such person's previous address, the person shall inform the chief law enforcement official in writing within ten days of such new address and phone number, if the phone number is also changed.

Article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution provides that "no law ... retrospective in its operation ... can be enacted."A retrospective law is one that creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability with respect to transactions or considerations already past.SeeSquaw Creek Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Turney,235 Mo. 80, 138 S.W. 12, 16(1911)."A statute is not retrospective or retroactive because it relates to prior facts or transactions but does not change their legal effect, or because some of the requisites for its action are drawn from a time antecedent to its passage, or because it fixes the status of an entity for the purpose of its operation."Jerry-Russell Bliss, Inc. v. Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Comm'n,702 S.W.2d 77, 81(Mo. banc 1985).

In Doe v. Phillips,194 S.W.3d 833(Mo. banc 2006), this Court addressed the argument that the registration requirements were retrospective in operation as to those who were convicted or pled guilty prior to its effective date.The Court found the law unconstitutional, stating:

Missouri's constitutional bar on laws retrospective in their operation compels this Court to invalidate Megan's Law's registration requirements as to, and only as to, those persons who were convicted or pled guilty prior to the law's January 1, 1995, effective date.This ruling applies only to the registration requirements.

Phillips,194 S.W.3d at 852-53(second emphasis added).

The key factor in this analysis is the language of section 589.400.The statute focuses on those convicted, found guilty of, or who have pled guilty to the underlying offense and who have not timely registered their address.The trigger date for purposes of retrospective analysis is the date of the conviction or plea, not the date of the underlying offense.Therefore, if the plea or conviction occurred prior to the effective date of the statute, the registration requirements are retrospective in nature.It follows that so long as the plea or conviction occurs after the effective date of the statute, as in this case, the registration requirements are not retrospective in operation, regardless of the date the underlying offense was committed.

Holden argues that subsequent references to the decision in Doe v. Phillips indicate the Court's intent to find that the statute is retrospective as to those who committed the offense prior to its effective date even if the date of the conviction or guilty plea occurred after the statute's effective date.Holden cites to two decisions: Doe v. Blunt,225 S.W.3d 421(Mo. banc 2007), and R.L. v. Mo. Dept. of Corr.,245 S.W.3d 236(Mo. banc 2008).

In Doe v. Blunt,a defendant pled guilty to the public display of explicit material.225 S.W.3d at 422.At that time, the offense did not require a duty to register.Id.A year later, the registration requirements were amended to include this offense, and a probation violation was filed against the defendant.Id.Citing Doe v. Phillips,the Court stated:

In Phillips,the Court determined that a law requiring registration as a sex offender for an offense that occurred prior to the registration law's effective date was retrospective in operation in violation of Mo. Const. article I, section 13.

Id.

In R.L. v. State of Mo. Dept. of Corrections,a defendant pled guilty to attempted enticement of a child.245 S.W.3d at 236.A few months later, a law was passed restricting offenders of this crime from living within a certain distance of a school.Id. at 237...