Townsend v. Jefferson Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, ED 107660

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Citation: 602 S.W.3d 262
• Docket Number: No. ED 107660,ED 107660
• Parties: Tonie M. TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 21 April 2020

602 S.W.3d 262

Tonie M. TOWNSEND, Appellant,
v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Respondent.

No. ED 107660

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: April 21, 2020
Motion for Rehearing and/or Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 18, 2020

David R. Crosby, P.O. Box 79, Hillsboro, MO 63050, for appellant.

Robert S. Harness, 703 N. Truman Blvd., Crystal City, MO 63019, for respondent.

Gary M. Gaertner Jr., Judge

602 S.W.3d 264

Introduction

This case concerns the interpretation of Section 571.101.2(3)¹ regarding the eligibility for obtaining a carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) permit. Tonie M. Townsend (Townsend) appeals the decision of the circuit court, which found Townsend's prior guilty pleas to felony offenses precluded him from obtaining a CCW permit under this statute. We affirm.

Background

Townsend applied to the Sheriff of Jefferson County (Sheriff) for a CCW permit under Section 571.101. On October 30, 2017, the Sheriff denied Townsend's application because Townsend had pled guilty in 1999 in Missouri to two felony counts of criminal non-support.² Townsend appealed the denial of his application to the small claims court of Jefferson County. Townsend submitted proof of a pardon for his two felony convictions, which Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon had granted on September 30, 2016.

The Sheriff filed a motion to dismiss on December 17, 2017, arguing that, despite his gubernatorial pardon, Townsend remained ineligible to receive a CCW permit under Section 571.101.2(3), because the pardon did not remove the fact of his guilty pleas. On June 20, 2018, the small claims court granted the Sheriff's motion to dismiss, reasoning that Section 571.101.2(3) allows issuance of a CCW permit only where an individual "[h]as not pled guilty to ... a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ..." in Missouri. The small claims court found Townsend's guilty pleas to felony criminal non-support excluded him from CCW eligibility. After Townsend filed an application for a trial de novo , the circuit court again granted the Sheriff's motion to dismiss, finding "[t]here is no other interpretation of the law that would allow the Court to find in favor of [Townsend]." This appeal follows.

Discussion

Townsend's sole point on appeal is that the trial court misinterpreted Section 571.101.2(3), because an exception in this statute allows a person to receive a CCW permit if he or she has pled guilty to a crime "classified as a misdemeanor under the laws of any state" carrying a prison term of two years or less and not involving a weapon. Townsend argues that because several states other than Missouri classify the crime of criminal non-support as a misdemeanor,³ he is eligible for a CCW permit.⁴ We disagree.

602 S.W.3d 265

We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Dodson v. Ferrara, 491 S.W.3d 542, 551 (Mo. banc 2016) (citing In re Care & Treatment of Coffman, 225 S.W.3d 439, 442 (Mo. banc 2007) ). Where the language of a statute is unambiguous, statutory construction is unnecessary, and we give effect to the language as written. Doe v. St. Louis Cmty. Coll., 526 S.W.3d 329, 336 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (citing Brady v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 213 S.W.3d 101, 107 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) ). In so doing, we give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meaning. Mosley v. English, 501 S.W.3d 497, 505 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citing Mo. ex rel. Bouchard v. Grady, 86 S.W.3d 121, 123 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002) ). However, our court will look past the plain and ordinary meaning of a statute when the language is ambiguous, or where the plain meaning will lead to an illogical result. Doe, 526 S.W.3d at 336 (citing Anderson v. Ken Kauffman & Sons Excavating, L.L.C., 248 S.W.3d 101, 106 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) ). We must interpret a statute in context, not reading any portion of the statute in isolation. Utility Serv. Co., Inc. v. Dept. of Labor and Indus. Relations, 331 S.W.3d 654, 658 (Mo. banc 2011). Additionally, we must construe statutes so as to avoid unreasonable, oppressive, or absurd results. Mosley, 501 S.W.3d at 505 (citing Grady at 123).

Section 571.101.2 states, in relevant part:

2. A certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement ... shall be issued by the sheriff or his or her designee of the county or city in which the applicant resides, if the applicant:

....

(3) Has not pled guilty to ... or been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year under the laws of any state or of the United States other than a crime classified as a misdemeanor under the laws of any state and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less that does not

...