JOSHUA RIDEOUT v. CHRIS KOSTER, Defendants-Respondents. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • JOSHUA RIDEOUT,                                )
    )
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                    )
    )
    v.                                             )       No. SD32736
    )       Filed: 5-28-14
    CHRIS KOSTER, et al.,                          )
    )
    Defendants-Respondents.                 )
    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUTLER COUNTY
    Honorable John H. Bloodworth, Associate Circuit Judge
    PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
    Joshua Rideout (Rideout) filed a declaratory judgment action to have his name
    removed from the Missouri sex offender registry. After his petition was denied on the
    merits, he appealed. Pursuant to the authority granted to us by Rule 84.14, we enter the
    judgment the trial court ought to have entered and dismiss Rideout’s petition without
    prejudice.1
    1
    All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2013). Rule 84.14 provides
    that “[t]he appellate court shall award a new trial or partial new trial, reverse or affirm the
    judgment or order of the trial court, in whole or in part, or give such judgment as the
    court ought to give. Unless justice otherwise requires, the court shall dispose finally of
    the case.” Id.; see Schweich v. Nixon, 
    408 S.W.3d 769
    , 772 (Mo. banc 2013) (relying on
    Rule 84.14 to dismiss without prejudice claims for declaratory relief that were
    premature).
    In May 2006, Rideout pled guilty in federal district court to one count of
    possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).2 In August
    2006, Rideout was sentenced to 78 months of incarceration in the Federal Bureau of
    Prisons, followed by 10 years of supervised release.3 His sentence included a provision
    stating that, “[a]s the offense is one which requires registration as a sex offender, the
    special condition requiring compliance with sex offender registration law is ordered.”
    In April 2010, Rideout filed a petition seeking declaratory relief in the Circuit
    Court of Ripley County. The named defendants included the Missouri Attorney General,
    the Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, and the Sheriff of Ripley
    County.4 In Rideout’s petition, he asked the circuit court to declare the Missouri Sex
    Offender Registration Act (SORA), §§ 589.400-.426, to be in violation of the Missouri
    Constitution and to enjoin the defendants from enforcing those statutes. By agreement of
    the parties, the case was transferred to Butler County.
    In May 2013, a bench trial was held. Rideout testified that he was then on
    supervised release. While on supervised release, he was required to report to a federal
    probation officer and follow the registration scheme for sex offenders. He had never
    been arrested or charged with violating any of the laws he challenged in his petition. The
    trial court entered a judgment on the merits for the defendants and denied the declaratory
    relief requested by Rideout. This appeal followed.
    2
    References to the United States Code are to the version in effect in 2006.
    References to Missouri statutes are to RSMo Cum. Supp. (2013).
    3
    Based upon these sentencing conditions, Rideout could be on supervised release
    until February 2023.
    4
    Although the petition named additional defendants, their motions to dismiss
    were granted by the trial court.
    2
    Rideout’s four points on appeal are all based upon the premise that his obligation
    to comply with SORA violates the Missouri Constitution. Because Rideout is still under
    federal court jurisdiction while he is on supervised release, Respondents argue that the
    trial court lacked the authority to change any of the conditions imposed by the federal
    court’s judgment.      For that reason, Respondents argue that Rideout’s petition for
    declaratory relief is premature and should have been dismissed without prejudice. We
    agree.
    “It is well settled that a justiciable controversy must exist in order for a trial court
    to grant declaratory relief.”      Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Wilburn, 
    422 S.W.3d 326
    ,
    328 (Mo. App. 2013).       We are required to determine whether there is a justiciable
    controversy before addressing the merits of the action. See Schweich v. Nixon, 
    408 S.W.3d 769
    , 773 (Mo. banc 2013). As our Supreme Court explained in Schweich,
    “[j]usticiability is a ‘prudential’ rather than a jurisdictional doctrine.” Id.5 A justiciable
    controversy exists where: (1) the plaintiff has a legally protectable interest at stake; (2) a
    substantial controversy exists between parties with genuinely adverse interests; and (3)
    that controversy is ripe for judicial determination.        Id.; Mo. Health Care Ass’n v.
    Attorney Gen. of Mo., 
    953 S.W.2d 617
    , 620 (Mo. banc 1997); Mid-Century Ins.
    
    Co., 422 S.W.3d at 329
    .6 “Even when a plaintiff is able to show standing, the merits will
    not be reached unless the case is ripe.”           
    Schweich, 408 S.W.3d at 774
    . “A ripe
    5
    In Mid-Century Ins. Co., this Court described justiciability as jurisdictional.
    Our Supreme Court later clarified in Schweich that justiciability is not jurisdictional, but
    “prudential” in nature, and must be addressed prior to reaching the merits of the case.
    
    Schweich, 408 S.W.3d at 774
    .
    6
    “The first two elements of justiciability are encompassed jointly by the concept
    of ‘standing.’” 
    Schweich, 408 S.W.3d at 774
    . Standing requires a party to have a
    personal stake arising from a threatened or actual injury. 
    Id. 3 controversy
    exists if the parties’ dispute is developed sufficiently to allow the court to
    make an accurate determination of the facts, to resolve a conflict that is presently
    existing, and to grant specific relief of a conclusive character.” Mo. Health Care 
    Ass’n, 953 S.W.2d at 621
    . Further, “[a] ripe controversy is a controversy of sufficient
    immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” 
    Id. Here, Rideout’s
    petition for declaratory relief does not present a controversy ripe
    for judicial determination.   As a special condition of Rideout’s supervised release,
    Rideout is subject to the independent, federally mandated registration requirement under
    the Sexual Offenders Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Doe v. Keathley, 
    290 S.W.3d 719
    , 720 (Mo. banc 2009) (noting that “SORNA applies to individuals who
    committed a sex offense prior to July 20, 2006”); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (federal
    court “shall order, as an explicit condition of supervised release for a person required to
    register under [SORNA], that the person comply with the requirements of that Act”).
    SORNA provides, inter alia, that “[a] sex offender shall register ... in each jurisdiction
    where the offender resides….” 42 U.S.C. § 16913; 
    Keathley, 290 S.W.3d at 720
    . Thus,
    SORNA imposes an independent obligation upon Rideout to register as a sex offender in
    Missouri. See 
    Keathley, 290 S.W.3d at 720
    . Consequently, even if this Court were
    inclined to grant Rideout the declaratory relief he requests, our ruling would have no
    effect on the condition of his supervised release, which requires registration as ordered by
    the federal court under SORNA. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (federal
    custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence). Furthermore, Rideout has already
    registered as a sex offender in Missouri, and no threats of enforcement exist. “Missouri
    courts do not issue opinions that have no practical effect and that are only advisory as to
    future, hypothetical situations.” State ex rel. Missouri Parks Ass’n v. Missouri Dept. of
    4
    Nat. Resources, 
    316 S.W.3d 375
    , 384 (Mo. App. 2010); Mid-Century Ins. 
    Co., 422 S.W.3d at 330
    . For these reasons, Rideout’s claim is at best premature, and the lack of
    ripeness precludes the granting of any effective or immediate relief in this action. See
    
    Schweich, 408 S.W.3d at 779
    .
    Pursuant to Rule 84.14, this Court will issue the ruling that the trial court should
    have entered. 
    Id. Rideout’s petition
    for declaratory relief is dismissed without prejudice.
    See, e.g., 
    Schweich, 408 S.W.3d at 779
    (dismissing without prejudice where claims were
    brought prematurely); Missouri Soybean Ass’n v. Missouri Clean Water Comm'n, 
    102 S.W.3d 10
    , 29 (Mo. banc 2003) (same disposition).
    JEFFREY W. BATES, P.J. – OPINION AUTHOR
    GARY W. LYNCH, J. – CONCUR
    DON E. BURRELL, J. – CONCUR
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SD32736

Judges: Bates, Lynch, Burrell, -Concur

Filed Date: 5/28/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024