533 S.W.3d 755
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2010 Jenette Wilkerson (age 18) pled guilty to the class D felony of sexual misconduct involving a child after consensual intercourse with a 13‑year‑old; she was sentenced to three years and registered as a sex offender in Missouri.
- In 2015 Wilkerson petitioned under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 589.400.8 to be removed from the Missouri sex‑offender registry; she admitted the underlying facts and claimed eligibility under § 589.400.8 (offender ≤19, victim ≥13, no force).
- The circuit court found statutory prerequisites satisfied and granted removal, but expressly made no finding on any federal registration obligation.
- The State appealed, arguing Wilkerson independently qualified as a federal “sex offender” under SORNA (34 U.S.C. §§ 20911 et seq.), triggering Missouri’s § 589.400.1(7) registration obligation and barring relief under § 589.400.8.
- The appellate court applied a non‑categorical inquiry to the admitted facts and concluded Wilkerson’s conduct falls within SORNA’s broad “specified offense against a minor” definition, so she was required to register federally and therefore remains subject to Missouri registration via § 589.400.1(7).
- The court reversed the trial court and remanded with directions to dismiss Wilkerson’s petition because she is not eligible for removal under §§ 589.400.8–.9 given her federal‑derived registration status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilkerson is eligible for removal from Missouri registry under § 589.400.8 | Wilkerson argued she met § 589.400.8 criteria (age ≤19, victim ≥13, no force) and is not a present threat | State argued she also qualifies as a federal "sex offender" under SORNA, so § 589.400.1(7) independently requires Missouri registration and precludes removal | Court held Wilkerson is subject to SORNA, § 589.400.1(7) applies, and she is not eligible for removal under § 589.400.8 |
| Whether SORNA’s definition applies via non‑categorical/facts‑based inquiry | Wilkerson implicitly argued her Missouri conviction should control eligibility for state relief | State argued federal definition includes offenses that "by their nature" are sex offenses against minors; facts show sexual intercourse with a 13‑yr‑old qualifies | Court applied non‑categorical approach and held the factual admission (consensual sex with a 13‑yr‑old) meets SORNA’s residual clause |
| Effect of § 589.400.1(7) when an offender was required to register under federal law | Wilkerson argued state relief statute controls and permits removal after two years for qualifying offenders | State relied on Missouri precedent (Toelke/Keathley) that § 589.400.1(7) creates a continuing state registration obligation when federal registration was required | Court held § 589.400.1(7) imposes state registration based on federal status, making § 589.400.8 inapplicable to federally‑defined sex offenders |
| Whether allowing § 589.400.8 relief would conflict with Missouri’s obligations under SORNA | Wilkerson argued state statute permits early removal in qualifying cases | State argued permitting removal would undermine SORNA implementation and risk federal funding penalties | Court agreed with State that early removal would conflict with SORNA’s minimum registration terms and state obligations to implement SORNA |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Isom, 429 S.W.3d 436 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (non‑categorical approach; SORNA analysis)
- Doe v. Toelke, 389 S.W.3d 165 (Mo. banc 2012) (state registration obligation based on past federal registration under § 589.400.1(7))
- Doe v. Keathley, 290 S.W.3d 719 (Mo. banc 2009) (federal SORNA obligations inform state registration requirements)
- United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (broad reading of SORNA residual clause; facts‑based analysis)
- Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438 (2010) (discusses state administrative role in SORNA implementation)
- United States v. Hill, 820 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2016) (interpreting SORNA’s scope for offenses against minors)