State v. Rodgers

Decision Date30 April 2013
Docket NumberNo. WD 74912.,WD 74912.
Citation396 S.W.3d 398
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. Gregory Allan RODGERS, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

396 S.W.3d 398

STATE of Missouri, Appellant,
v.
Gregory Allan RODGERS, Respondent.

No. WD 74912.

Missouri Court of Appeals,
Western District.

Feb. 5, 2013.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 5, 2013.

Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 30, 2013.


[396 S.W.3d 399]


Karen L. Kramer, Jefferson City, MO, for Appellant.

Stephen S. Wyse, Columbia, MO, for Respondent.


Before Division Three: ALOK AHUJA, Presiding Judge, VICTOR C. HOWARD, Judge and GARY D. WITT, Judge.

VICTOR C. HOWARD, Judge.

The State appeals the trial court's judgment granting defendant Gregory Allen Rodgers's motion to dismiss the charge against him for unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of section 571.070 RSMo. In the State's two points on appeal, it argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the charges because, (1) a valid conceal carry permit is not a defense to the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of section 571.070 where the defendant was a “fugitive from justice;” and (2) Rodgers was a “fugitive from justice” as a matter of law under the plain meaning of the term because he evaded law enforcement to avoid arrest for the charge pending against him for leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident. The judgment is affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 13, 2011, the Boone County prosecutor filed a complaint against Gregory Allen Rodgers, alleging that Rodgers had committed unlawful use of a weapon in violation of section 571.030.1(1).1 The probable cause statement reflected that on August 12, 2011, Sergeant Geoff Jones, who was in plain clothes at the time, contacted Rodgers in person regarding a warrant for a municipal ordinance violation of leaving the scene of an accident. Officer Quintana and Officer Moroney were approaching in a marked patrol car. Upon seeing the patrol car, Rodgers took off running. Sergeant Jones identified himself as a police officer, and Rodgers took a gun that had been tucked into his waistband and concealed beneath his shirt and threw it on the ground. Rodgers then lay down on the ground and was taken into custody. Officers determined that Rodgers had a Missouri concealed carry endorsement that had expired October 20, 2007, and had a previous conviction from 2006 for possession of an illegal weapon. The probable cause statement also asserted that Rodgers knew that there was an active warrant for his arrest and ran from the police instead of immediately surrendering himself.

It was later determined that Rodgers had a Florida license to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms, issued February 18, 2010, which was in good standing and would expire February 18, 2017, unless renewed. Based upon this license, Rodgers filed a motion to dismiss the charge against him.

The State filed a first amended complaint, charging Rodgers with violation of section 571.070 for unlawful possession of a firearm. The amended complaint alleged that on August 12, 2011, Rodgers knowingly possessed a Browning .9 mm Luger. It further alleged that on May 11, 2011, Rodgers had been involved in a traffic accident and was issued a summons for leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident, that he had failed to appear on that summons, and a warrant was issued for his arrest by the municipal court of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The amended complaint also alleged that Rodgers was a fugitive from justice in that he had been charged with the commission of the crime of leaving the scene of an accident and was

[396 S.W.3d 400]

concealing himself for the purpose of avoiding arrest.

Rodgers filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, asserting that he was not a fugitive from justice. There was a hearing held on the motion during which Rodgers judicially admitted all facts in the amended complaint: that he knowingly possessed a Browning 9 mm Luger on May 11, 2011, he was involved in a traffic accident and was issued a summons upon which he failed to appear on July 18, 2011, and a warrant was issued and was outstanding at the time of his arrest.

Both the State and Rodgers filed suggestions regarding Rodgers's motion to dismiss. The trial court granted Rodgers's motion and dismissed the State's charge without prejudice, ruling that under section 571.101.2(4), a fugitive from justice must be charged with a misdemeanor with a punishment exceeding one year of imprisonment in order for his permit to carry a concealed weapon to be suspended. The court found that a failure to appear on a municipal ordinance violation was not sufficient to suspend Rodgers's permit to carry a concealed weapon. The court ruled that the failure to appear would be sufficient to submit Rodgers to felony punishment under section 571.070.

This appeal from the State follows.

ANALYSIS

In its two points on appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred in granting Rodgers's motion to dismiss because a valid conceal and carry permit is not a defense to the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm by a fugitive from justice under section 571.070, and Rodgers was a fugitive from justice within the plain meaning of the term. Because the second point is dispositive, it is the only one we address.

Standard of Review

Generally, review of the trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss is for an abuse of discretion. State v. Clinch, 335 S.W.3d 579, 583 (Mo.App. W.D.2011). If the trial court's ruling is “clearly against the logic of the circumstances before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration,” an abuse of discretion has occurred. Id.

Where, as here, the facts are uncontested and the only issue is a matter of statutory construction, the trial court's dismissal of a felony complaint is subject to de novo review by the appellate court. State v. Smothers, 297 S.W.3d 626, 632 (Mo.App. W.D.2009). “The interpretation of a statute is a pure question of law, and therefore we give the circuit court's interpretation no deference.” Id.

Rodgers Was Not A Fugitive From Justice

Section 571.070.1 provides:

A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if such person knowingly has any firearm in his or her possession and:

(1) Such person has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, or of a crime under the laws of any state or of the United States which, if committed within this state, would be a felony; or

(2) Such person is a fugitive from justice, is habitually in an intoxicated or drugged condition, or is currently adjudged mentally incompetent

(emphasis added).


The term “fugitive from justice” is not defined in section 571.070, nor in the remainder of that chapter, nor in the remainder of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • State v. Metzinger
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 24, 2015
    ...Generally, we review the trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss a criminal charge for an abuse of discretion. State v. Rodgers, 396 S.W.3d 398, 400 (Mo.App.W.D.2013). However, whether an information fails to state an offense is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Rouss......
  • Rodgers v. Knight
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 23, 2015
    ...Rodgers and Raymond Franklin. In both cases, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. We affirm.I.The Rodgers case involves an arrest of Greg Rodgers in August 2011, a subsequent search of his residence, a prosecution that was later dismissed, and the re......
  • State v. Clayborn-Muldrow
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 22, 2022
    ...a criminal charge for an abuse of discretion. State v. Metzinger , 456 S.W.3d 84, 89 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (citing State v. Rodgers , 396 S.W.3d 398, 400 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) ). Determining which statute of limitations applies to a particular offense is a question of law we review de novo. S......
  • State v. Clayborn-Muldrow
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 22, 2022
    ... ... of Review ... Generally, ... we review the trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss ... a criminal charge for an abuse of discretion. State v ... Metzinger, 456 S.W.3d 84, 89 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) ... (citing State v. Rodgers, 396 S.W.3d 398, 400 (Mo ... App. W.D. 2013)). Determining which statute of limitations ... applies to a particular offense is a question of law we ... review de novo. State v. Wright, 484 S.W.3d ... 817, 818 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (citing State v. Horn, ... 384 S.W.3d ... ...
  • 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