Lead Opinion
Michelle Schaefer, Cindy Brandt and Dale Price (plaintiffs) were charged with intoxication-related driving offenses. Each plaintiff had prior convictions for intoxication-related driving offenses.
FACTS
Plaintiffs were convicted of intoxication-related offenses on multiple occasions. On July 3, 2008, House Bill 1715 became effective, repealing and reenacting section 577.023, which pertains to enhanced penalties for individuals with multiple prior convictions for intoxication-related driving offenses. Following the re-enactment of section 577.023 in HB 1715, each plaintiff again was arrested for a new intoxication-related driving offense.
While the new criminal charges were pending, plaintiffs filed a consolidated petition for a declaratory judgment that HB 1715 and section 577.023 are unconstitutional. The trial court entered a final judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ petition on grounds that the constitutional issues should be addressed in the course of each plaintiffs criminal case.
In this appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in dismissing their declaratory judgment action and in overruling their motion for summary judgment.
ANALYSIS
The declaratory judgment act, section 527.010, RSMo 2000, vests trial courts with the power to “to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.” A court may grant a declaratory judgment if presented with: (1) a justi-ciable controversy that presents a real, substantial, presently existing controversy admitting of specific relief, as distinguished from an advisory decree upon a purely hypothetical situation; (2) a plaintiff with a legally protectable interest at stake, consisting of a pecuniary or personal interest directly at issue and subject to immediate or prospective consequential relief; (3) a controversy ripe for judicial determination; and (4) an inadequate remedy at law. Mo. Soybean Ass’n v. Mo. Clean Water Comm’n,
In this case, the trial court properly exercised its discretion to dismiss plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment petition because each plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law. When plaintiffs filed their declaratory judgment petition, each had the option of raising as a defense the alleged unconstitutionality of HB 1715 and section 577.023. “[W]here [the] alternative remedy is a pending suit, there is even greater justification to apply the rule against allowing declaratory judgment actions.” Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nigl,
Notes
. Section 516.500, which places a limit upon when an "action” can be "commenced, had or maintained” to challenge procedural irregularities in the enactment of a law, does not apply to a criminal defendant who raises a challenge to the statute as a defense in the criminal case.
. After the final judgment of dismissal was entered, and while this appeal was pending, plaintiffs Schaefer and Price pleaded guilty. The guilty pleas render Schaefer’s and Price’s claims moot as there is no presently existing controversy. Plaintiff Brandt’s criminal case still is pending and is not moot.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the principal opinion because I disagree that Cindy Brandt has an adequate remedy at law. The statutory purpose of a declaratory judgment action is to “afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations.” Section 527.120, RSMo 2000.
Facts
Michelle Schaefer, Cindy Brandt, and Dale Price, the Appellants, filed a consolidated petition for declaratory judgment in Cole County in May 2009. The petition sought to declare House Bill (HB) 1715 unconstitutional. HB 1715 became effec-five July 3, 2008, and it repealed and reenacted § 577.023. The portion of HB 1715 that is challenged was enacted as § 577.023.16 and allowed for the admission of evidence regarding the defendant’s pri- or pleas and sentences to intoxication-related traffic offenses when the pleas were made in a municipal division and resulted in a suspended imposition of sentence. This evidence could support an enhanced penalty if Appellants are found to be aggravated, chronic, persistent, or prior offenders.
Appellants’ petition sought declaratory judgment because “the State of Missouri may seek, has threatened to seek, or has already sought prior, persistent, aggravated, or chronic offender enhancement status under § 577.023.” It then argued that § 577.023 is unconstitutional because it is part of a bill titled “[a]n Act to repeal ... [several sections , of legislation] and to enact ... twenty new sections relating to watercraft ...” and, therefore, violates Mo. Const, article III, sections 21 and 23. Specifically, the Appellants contended that HB 1715 was changed after its introduction, that the bill includes more than one subject, and that the title does not fairly apprise members of the legislature and the public of its subject.
The challenged provision, § 577.023.16, RSMo Supp. 2008, was repealed and reenacted with nearly identical provisions by HB 62 on July 9, 2009.
The Attorney General defended the constitutionality of HB 1715 because the Attorney General is the proper party to defend the constitutionality of a statute. If a declaratory judgment action challenges the constitutionality of a statute, “the attorney general of the state shall also be ... entitled to be heard.” Section 527.110. Additionally, the Attorney General represents the State of Missouri on the appeal of felony convictions. Section 547.260.
After Appellants filed their petition, the State filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court overruled the motion. Both parties then filed motions for summary judgment and an agreed statement of uncontrovert-ed material facts. Thereafter, the trial court entered its final judgment in this case sustaining the State’s motion for summary judgment, overruling Appellants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissing Appellants’ petition with prejudice. The written judgment did not discuss the issue of whether HB 1715 was unconstitutional; instead, it overruled Appellants’ motion because they did not establish “ ‘a personal stake in the outcome’ necessary to make their constitutional claims litigable ... and because these constitutional issues should be litigated (if at all) by each [Appellant] in each separate criminal case.”
Both Schaefer and Price pled guilty, rendering their claims moot.
Analysis
Mo. Const, article III, section 21, prohibits amending any bill through its passage in either house as to change its original purpose. Article III, section 21, states in pertinent part, “[n]o law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be so amended in its passage through either house as to change its original purpose.” Article III, section 23, states in pertinent part that “[n]o bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title.... ” “The purpose of these two sections is ‘to keep individual members of the legislature and the public fairly apprised of the subject matter of pending laws and to insulate the governor from ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ choices when contemplating the use of the veto power.’ ” C.C. Dillon Co. v. City of Eureka,
Violation of the Clear Title Limitations
“If the title of a bill contains a particular limitation or restriction, a provision that
Here, as finally passed, HB 1715’s title was described as being “related to watercraft.” Obviously, HB 1715’s title does not clearly describe a bill that includes penalty enhancement concerning the operation of motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol. No reasonable person could read “related to watercraft” and believe or suspect that somewhere in the bill there was a provision relating to criminal conduct that occurs on land while operating a motor vehicle.
Violation of Original Purpose Limitation
The original purpose of the bill must, of course, be measured at the time of the bill’s introduction. C.C. Dillon Co.,
Violation of the Single Subject Rule
“No bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title.” Mo. Const, article III, section 23. The main test for determining if a bill violates the single subject rule is laid out in Hammerschmidt v. Boone County,
In Hammerschmidt, the original purpose and single subject core of the bill was to “amend laws relating to elections.”
Here, as finally passed, HB 1715 carried the title “An Act To repeal sections ... and to enact in lieu thereof twenty-two new sections relating to watercraft, with a penalty provision and emergency clause for a certain section.” The original purpose and single subject core of this bill, as
Statute of Limitations
Section 516.5004 states:
No action alleging a procedural defect in the enactment of a bill into law shall be commenced, had or maintained by any party later than the adjournment of the next full regular legislative session following the effective date of the bill as law, unless it can be shown that there was no party aggrieved who could have raised the claim within that time. In the latter circumstance, the complaining party must establish that he or she was the first person aggrieved or in the class of first persons aggrieved, and that the claim was raised not later than the adjournment of the next full regular legislative session following any person being aggrieved. In no event shall an action alleging a procedural defect in the enactment of a bill into law be allowed later than five years after the bill or the pertinent section of the bill which is challenged becomes effective.
It is well settled that the challenges to the constitutionality of a statute based on article III, sections 21 and 28, are procedural defects governed by § 516.500.
Moreover, Brandt cannot rely on either express exception to this statute of limita
The State seeks to avoid a discussion regarding the constitutional merits of this provision and contends that the 2008 version of § 577.023.16 is a procedural law rather than a substantive law and, therefore, it would not be applied to Brandt’s criminal case, and her claim is moot.
This Court faced a similar but distinguishable issue in State v. Acton,
The court of appeals subsequently analyzed Acton in the context of a factually similar but distinguishable case in State v. Coomer,
The court in Coomer explained that, in Acton, the new law took effect before the commission of the offense for which the defendant was tried; whereas, in Coomer, the new law took effect after the commission of the offense for which the defendant was tried. Id. at 359. The court in Coomer relied on this distinction, noting that the law in effect at the time of the offense
Like Acton, HB 1715 took effect before Brandt committed the offense. But the issue here is complicated by the constitutional infirmity of HB 1715. If HB 1715 is unconstitutional, which the above discussion demonstrates, the immediately proceeding statute would come into force automatically and apply to Brandt. State ex rel Daily Record Co. v. Hartmann,
Severance of Unconstitutional Provisions
Under the current state of the law, I would sever the provision of HB 1715 that became § 577.023.16 and declare that provision, which does not relate to watercraft unconstitutional under article III, sections 21 and 23, as clearly demonstrated above. When the procedure by which the legislature enacted a bill violates the constitution, severance is appropriate when this Court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the specific provisions in question are not essential to the efficacy of the bill. Hammerschmidt,
Conclusion
I would reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment because Cindy Brandt is time barred by the clear, plain, and express language of § 516.500 from raising a defense based on article III, sections 21 and 23, in her criminal case, which remains pending, thus she has no adequate remedy
. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 unless otherwise indicated.
. The members of the General Assembly likely recognized the constitutional infirmity of HB 1715.
. On October 8, 2010, Schaefer pleaded guilty to a class C felony of DWI and was sentenced to five years in prison as an aggravated DWI offender in exchange for a recommendation for a suspended execution of sentence, five years probation, and her completion of DWI court. On August 25, 2010, Price pleaded guilty to a class B misdemeanor and received a suspended imposition of sentence despite his two prior municipal DWI offenses because the prosecutor did not seek to enhance his penalty. By making plea agreements in these two cases, which did not subject these two defendants to the punishment enhancement of HB 1715, the issue of HB 1715's constitutionality was avoided.
.The principal opinion’s conclusion, in footnote 1, that § 516.500 does not apply to a criminal defendant who raises a constitutional challenge as a defense was not briefed or argued by either party in this case nor any other case. The conclusion cites no authority and is contrary to the unambiguous language of § 516.500. "Action” is not defined in the statute, and Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term as ”[t]he process of doing something; conduct or behavior." (9th ed. 2009). The conclusion that "action” only applies to filing a lawsuit to contest the constitutionality of a statute is a strained reading of the statute, ignoring the plain meaning of the words. See Parktown Imports, Inc. v. Audi of America, Inc.,
. This statute of limitations was patterned after the concurring opinion authored by Judge Holstein in Hammerschmidt, which was joined by a majority of the members of this Court.
. Although Appellants stipulated that ”[i]n each of the most recent criminal prosecutions against Appellants for driving while intoxicated, Appellants have argued or could argue as a defense that House Bill 1715 and Section 577.023 RSMo, under which the State seeks enhanced offender status, are unconstitutional,” the stipulation is of no consequence. “A party cannot stipulate to issues of law.” Junior College Dist. of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis,
. Notably, counsel for the State, who has an obligation to be candid with this Court, does not argue that HB 1715 was constitutionally enacted, but rather makes a procedural argument to avoid a discussion of the constitutional merits of HB 1715.
. This follows because the general rule is that unconstitutional statutes are void ab initio. State ex rel. Bloomquist v. Schneider,
. It has been persuasively articulated that the judicially created doctrine of severance from the Hammerschmidt decision was a bad concept and in fact does damage to the legislative process and the doctrine of separation of powers. For example, a University of Pittsburgh Law Review article studied many state single subject provisions from around the nation and outlined a compelling case for striking down an entire bill. The author noted, "[wjith respect to riders, severing them fails to provide legislators with an incentive not to engage in this behavior” and, in fact, "encourages legislators to attach riders.” Single Subject Rules and the Legislative Process, 67 U. Pitt. L.Rev. 803, 867 (2006). The rationale for this argument is that these unrelated provisions, if detected, "will simply be removed and can be reattached to another bill," resulting in minimal political backlash. Id. However, "if the presence of a rider leads to invalidation of an entire bill, legislators who attached the rider will pay a higher price.” Id. That is, "other legislators, whose hard-fought political bargain was undone because of the rider, may be incensed and less likely to bargain with the culprits, and citizens may be enraged by the delay or failure to enact important legislation.” Id. Therefore, "[fjear of these penalties may prevent riders from being attached in the first place.” Id.
A recent University of Missouri Law Review article gave another reason the doctrine of severance set out in Hammerschmidt is problematic, stating:
Another argument in favor of striking down the entire bill as unconstitutional is motivated by a desire to protect the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. Since legislation is often the result of much debate and political tradeoffs,*307 if a judge takes away only one provision of a bill, presumably, at least one legislator would be upset. In fact, if this provision were excised prior to passage, the bill might not have had enough support to gamer enough votes to pass. Therefore, if the courts sever only a portion of a bill, they may be subverting the legislative process and allowing legislation that might not have received enough votes to become law.
As the frequency of litigation increases, even with the short statute of limitations that is provided in § 516.500, RSMo 2000, there may come a time when this Court should reconsider whether the judicial doctrine of severance has served to support and protect the Missouri Constitution. Mo. Const, article III, section 15; Mo. Const, article VII, section 11; section 476.280, RSMo 2000.
. Ubi jus, ibi remedium: Where there is a right, there is a remedy.