State v. Young

• Decision Date: 01 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. SC 91632.,SC 91632.
• Citation: 362 S.W.3d 386
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, ex inf. Teresa Hensley, Prosecuting Attorney, Respondent, v. Herschel L. YOUNG, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

362 S.W.3d 386

STATE of Missouri, ex inf. Teresa Hensley, Prosecuting Attorney, Respondent,
v.
Herschel L. YOUNG, Appellant.

No. SC 91632.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

March 6, 2012.Rehearing Denied May 1, 2012.

[362 S.W.3d 389]

Charlie R. Dickman of The Law Offices of Charlie Dickman LLC, Kansas City, for Young.

Scott Wright and Teresa Hensley of the Cass County prosecutor's office, Harrisonville, for the State.

GEORGE W. DRAPER III, Judge.

Herschel L. Young (hereinafter, “Young”) appeals from the circuit court's judgment after Teresa Hensley, prosecuting attorney for Cass County, (hereinafter, “Hensley”) instituted a quo warranto action against him, resulting in his ouster from his position as Cass County presiding commissioner. Young raises three points on appeal, challenging the constitutional validity and applicability of section 115.350, RSMo 2000, ¹ and raising equal protection arguments. The judgment is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

On December 21, 1987, Young pleaded guilty to the felony offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the district court of Bell County, Texas. The district court entered an order “deferring adjudication” and placed Young on probation for three years. Young completed probation and the “adjudication” was dismissed. On June 29, 1995, Young pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree, a class C felony, in Cass County, Missouri. Young was sentenced to one year imprisonment. The circuit court suspended execution of his sentence and placed him on supervised probation for three years. Young successfully completed his probation. The Missouri conviction was not recorded with the Missouri State Highway Patrol and remains absent from Young's criminal history.

On March 16, 2010, Young filed a declaration of candidacy for the office of presiding commissioner of Cass County. On November 2, 2010, Young received the majority vote for presiding commissioner. Young was sworn in and entered upon the duties of that office on January 1, 2011.

Hensley filed this quo warranto action on January 3, 2011, alleging Young usurped the office of Cass County presiding commissioner because he was not qualified to be a candidate for elective public office due to his 1995 felony conviction in Missouri. The circuit court entered its judgment granting Hensley's petition for

[362 S.W.3d 390]

quo warranto and ordering Young's ouster from office. Young now appeals.

Standard of Review

Since Young is challenging the validity of a statute, this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this appeal under article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution.² St. Louis County v. Prestige Travel, Inc., 344 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Mo. banc 2011). When a case is submitted on stipulated facts, the only question before this court is whether the circuit court drew the proper legal conclusions from those facts. Mo. Prosecuting Attorneys v. Barton County, 311 S.W.3d 737, 740 (Mo. banc 2010). Constitutional challenges to a statute are issues of law to be reviewed de novo. Rentschler v. Nixon, 311 S.W.3d 783, 786 (Mo. banc 2010).

Constitutional Validity of Section 115.350

In his first point, Young argues the circuit court erred in ousting him from office in reliance upon section 115.350 because this statute violates article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution prohibiting retrospective application of the law. Young claims application of section 115.350 to him creates a new duty, obligation, or disability with respect to his 1995 felony conviction because it permanently forecloses him from running for office.

A statute is presumed to be constitutional. Dydell v. Taylor, 332 S.W.3d 848, 852 (Mo. banc 2011). This Court will not invalidate a statute unless “it clearly and undoubtedly violates some constitutional provision and palpably affronts fundamental law embodied in the constitution.” State v. Richard, 298 S.W.3d 529, 531 (Mo. banc 2009). Young, as the party challenging the statute's validity, bears the burden of proving the statute clearly and undoubtedly violates the constitution. Id.

Section 115.350 was enacted in 2007, several years after Young's conviction. It provides, “No person shall qualify as a candidate for elective public office in the State of Missouri who has been convicted of or found guilty of or pled guilty to a felony under the laws of this state.”

(1) Vested Right

Article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution prohibits the enactment of any law that is “retrospective in its operation.” A law is retrospective in operation if it takes away or impairs vested or substantial rights acquired under existing laws or imposes new obligations, duties, or disabilities with respect to past transactions. Hess v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, N.A., 220 S.W.3d 758, 769 (Mo. banc 2007). A vested right “must be something more than a mere expectation based upon an anticipated continuance of existing law.” Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 833, 852 (Mo. banc 2006) (quoting Fisher v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. No. R–V, 567 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Mo. banc 1978)).

[362 S.W.3d 391]

Young has no vested right in the election qualification laws remaining unchanged. Id. He also has no vested right to be free from further collateral consequences from his prior guilty plea. Id. However, Young's failure to demonstrate a vested right is not fatal to his argument. A vested right is not needed to invoke the constitutional principles contained in article I, section 13. F.R. v. St. Charles County Sheriff's Dept., 301 S.W.3d 56, 62 (Mo. banc 2010). The vested rights reference is a disjunctive option, and therefore, Young did not have to demonstrate a vested right to prevail on his claim. Id.

(2) New Obligation, Duty or Disability

Young's argument encompasses the second disjunctive option, that section 115.350 imposes a new obligation, duty or disability solely because he has a prior felony conviction. Young claims this Court's analysis in F.R. is dispositive because his 1995 conviction predates the enactment of section 115.350, thereby imposing a new obligation, duty or disability on him. Specifically, Young contends the statute imposes upon him an affirmative obligation to refrain from running for elective office and, by extension, from holding office.

In F.R., this Court held two statutes were unconstitutional as applied to F.R. and Raynor when they imposed new obligations and duties on them solely as a result of their prior sex offense convictions, and their failure to perform these new duties and obligations carried criminal penalties. F.R., 301 S.W.3d at 66. The first statute imposed upon F.R. a duty to determine whether the residence to which he wished to move was within 1,000 feet of a school or day care facility. Id. at 63. This obligation was imposed on F.R. years after his conviction and required his performance under threat of criminal penalty. Id. The second statute imposed four obligations or duties upon Raynor to be carried out on Halloween, which included: (1) avoiding contact with children; (2) remaining inside his residence; (3) posting a sign on his door; and (4) leaving his light off. Id. Like F.R., these obligations were imposed years after Raynor's conviction and required him to perform or be subjected to criminal penalties. Id. The Court found the challenged statutes “simply impose new obligations or duties on F.R. and Raynor, giving new legal effect to their prior convictions” and accordingly, were retrospective when applied to them. Id.

This Court was mindful of the difficulties in distinguishing “the retroactive effect of this law from the ordinary regulatory actions that may take into account past conduct or past conditions in providing current or prospective regulation.” Id. Further, this Court recognized a slippery slope wherein “it could be well claimed that no statute could be enacted imposing new duties upon or giving new privileges or rights to a person already born ... [or] to a corporation already created.” Id. at 64 (quoting Squaw Creek Drainage Dist. v. Turney, 235 Mo. 80, 138 S.W. 12, 16 (1911)).

Young's argument attempts to go down this slippery slope. Section 115.350 does not impose any new obligation or duty on Young because he has no affirmative obligation to take any action whatsoever to comply with section 115.350. Cf. F.R.,; Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d at 852 (statute that imposed a new obligation and duty on sex offenders to register, maintain, and update registration based solely on their offenses prior to the statute's enactment was retrospective in operation). Moreover, “[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

[362 S.W.3d 392]

time antecedent to its passage, or because it fixes the status of an entity for purpose of its operation.” Jackson v. Members of Missouri Bd. of Probation & Parole, 301 S.W.3d 71, 71–72 (Mo. banc 2010) (quoting Jerry–Russell Bliss v. Hazardous Waste, 702 S.W.2d 77, 81 (Mo. banc 1985)). While section 115.350 relates to Young's 1995 conviction and forecloses his ability to qualify to run for office, its operation does not change the legal effect of his conviction.

Young also attempts to draw a parallel between his claim and those of F.R. and Raynor by arguing he will be subjected to criminal penalties under the election statutes based solely upon his 1995 conviction. In F.R., this Court stated both men would be subject to criminal penalties if they failed to comply with the laws as applied to them and that an essential element to be proven if felony charges were brought was that they both were convicted sex offenders. Id. at 63. Likewise, Young argues his 1995 conviction would be an essential element of any felony charge brought pursuant to section 115.631 concerning the averments contained in his declaration of candidacy form.

Section 115.349.1 provides that every candidate must file a written declaration...