State v. Tilton

• Decision Date: 28 December 2022
• Docket Number: SD37339
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LONNIE STULL TILTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
LONNIE STULL TILTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

No. SD37339

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, In Division

December 28, 2022

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY Honorable Dean G. Dankelson

DON E. BURRELL, J.

AFFIRMED AND TRANSFERRED

Lonnie Stull Tilton, Jr. ("Defendant") appeals his convictions after a jury found him guilty of first-degree burglary and failure to register as a sexual offender.^[1] In two points on appeal, Defendant claims the State's evidence was insufficient to prove that: (1) he had a "specific intent to steal the items he took" when he entered Victim's garage; and (2) he was still required to register as a sexual offender at the time the State charged him with failing to do so. Finding no merit in either claim, we would ordinarily affirm the judgment. However, as noted infra, our supreme court has taken transfer of two cases

1

that demonstrate the existing split between the districts of our court about whether section 589.400.1(7) requires lifetime registration for any person who has ever been required to register as a sexual offender under federal law. Based upon those transfers, and the importance of the question involved, we do not finally decide Defendant's appeal and order that it be transferred to the Supreme Court of Missouri for final disposition pursuant to Rule 83.02.^[2]

Standard of Review

An appellate court's role in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is limited to determining whether there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could have found each element of the offense to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500, 508-09 (Mo. banc 2011); State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681, 686-87 (Mo banc 2010); State v. Williams, 469 S.W.3d 6, 8 (Mo. App. 2015). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, all evidence favorable to the State is accepted as true, including all favorable inferences drawn from the evidence. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d at 687. All evidence and inferences to the contrary are disregarded. Id. An appellate court" will not weigh the evidence anew since the fact-finder may believe all, some, or none of the testimony of a witness when considered with the facts, circumstances and other testimony in the case." State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 425 (Mo. banc 2008) (internal quotations omitted).

State v. Ingalsbe, 557 S.W.3d 515, 519 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018).

The Relevant Evidence

Defendant was charged with first-degree burglary for entering a building (Victim's attached garage) "for the purpose of committing stealing therein, and while in such building, there was present in such building, [Victim], a person who was not a participant in the crime." Defendant's actions were captured by Victim's surveillance cameras, and the footage ("the surveillance footage") was played for the jury at trial.

2

Victim's garage was attached to her home, and the surveillance footage showed that after subtly scanning the area to see if anyone was looking, Defendant entered the garage from the sidewalk, grabbed a pair of pants, threw them over his shoulder, then walked back out of the garage...