The circuit court held a hearing on February 23, 2017, and granted the motion to dismiss on February 28, 2017, concluding: 1) Carr's offense involved the use or threat of physical force, thus requiring lifetime registration as a tier III sex offender under SORNA, and 2) Carr's required registration under SORNA triggered lifetime registration under SORA. Section 589.400.1(7). This appeal follows.
Standard of Review
The judgment of the circuit court will be upheld on appeal, unless " 'it is not supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law.' " Wilkerson v. State,
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
Before addressing the merits of Carr's appeal, it is instructive to review SORNA's general purpose and its tiering system for sex offenders. SORNA was enacted in 2006, as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, Pub.L. 109-248, Tit. I,
SORNA requires sex offenders to 'register, and keep the registration current, in each jurisdiction where the offender resides, where the offender is an employee, and where the offender is a student,'42 U.S.C. § 16913 (a).
Individuals subject to SORNA's registration requirements are identified in42 U.S.C. § 16911 (1), which provides that '[t]he term "sex offender" means an individual who was convicted of a sex offense.' A sex offense is defined as 'a criminal offense that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another,' 42 U.S.C. 16911(5)(A)(i), or 'a criminal offense that is a specified offense against a minor.'42 U.S.C. § 16911 (5)(A)(ii).
A 'specified offense against a minor' includes 'criminal sexual conduct involving a minor,'42 U.S.C. § 16911 (7)(H), and 'any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor.'42 U.S.C. § 16911 (7)(I) (emphasis added). Under the federal statutes, a minor is a person under the age of 18.42 U.S.C. § 16911 (14).
James,
Additionally, SORNA divides sex offenders into three tiers.
Analysis
I.
Carr first argues the circuit court erred in determining Carr is a tier III sex offender under SORNA and thus ineligible for removal from Missouri's Registry, because the court's determination was based on facts underlying Carr's state conviction, rather than based solely on the offense to which Carr pleaded. We agree.
Instead of the categorical approach, the circuit court mistakenly applied the "circumstances-specific" approach, citing United States v. Hill ,
While both parties suggest a categorical approach to tier determination would require remand, we need not remand the case to conclude, at the very least, Carr is not a tier III offender. The relevant element of Carr's state conviction is that he had "sexual intercourse with another person ... who is fourteen or fifteen years old." Section 566.040, RSMo 1979. Since Tier III, in relevant part, requires use or threat of force, supra
II.
Carr next argues the circuit court erred in finding Carr was ever required to register under SORNA, because the federal mandate to register under SORNA elapsed before becoming applicable to Carr. Respondent contends this argument is unpreserved for appeal. However, the issue of preservation is moot, because our analysis under Point I unavoidably resolves the issue raised under Point II. This is because the date of Carr's 1980 state conviction, considered together with Carr's classification as either a tier I or tier II sex offender, places Carr outside the statutory
Carr is not subject to a registration obligation under SORA
SORA became effective on January 1, 1995 and "imposes registration and notification requirements on persons committing crimes," such as Carr's, "listed in chapter 566[.]" Petrovick v. State ,
However, SORA also requires registration of "[a]ny person who ... has been or is required to register under ... federal ... law." Section 589.400.1(7). As we noted in Petrovick , SORNA "does apply to individuals who were convicted of relevant sexual offenses before SORNA's enactment in July 2006."
It is true that article I, section 13 prohibits the state from imposing registration requirements based solely on the commission of a sex crime prior to the January 1, 1995, enactment of SORA. However, article I, section 13 does not prohibit the application of SORA to those individuals who are or have been subject to the independent registration requirements of SORNA. When, as in this case, the state registration requirement is based on an independent federal registration requirement, article I, section 13 is not implicated because the state registration requirement is not based solely on the fact of a past conviction. Instead, the state registration requirement is based on the person's present status as a sex offender who "has been" required to register pursuant to SORNA.
Petrovick ,
Carr has never been subject to a registration obligation under SORNA
The required full registration period for tier I and tier II sex offenders is fifteen years and twenty-five years, respectively.
Conclusion
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and remanded with instructions to remove Carr's name from Missouri's Sex Offender Registry.
All concur.
Notes
Pursuant to
The State argues that a remand is necessary to determine the actual age of the victim of Carr's state conviction, because
