Richard Justin Sprouse v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

RENDERED: JANUARY 13, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2021-CA-1258-MR
RICHARD JUSTIN SPROUSE APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE STEVE ALAN WILSON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 19-CR-01195
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CALDWELL, CETRULO, AND COMBS, JUDGES.
CALDWELL, JUDGE: Richard Sprouse (hereinafter “Sprouse”) entered an
Alford1 plea to a charge of failing to comply with Kentucky Revised Statutes
(“KRS”) 17.510(11). That statute requires persons convicted of certain delineated
sexually based offenses to register as a sex offender and then imposes upon them a
duty to validate the information contained in the sex offender registry on a periodic
1
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970).
basis. The Commonwealth alleged Sprouse failed to comply with periodic
verification. He reserved the right to appeal his conviction. After reviewing the
briefs of the parties and the applicable law, we affirm the conviction.
FACTS
The facts contained in the record before us are scant. We take judicial
notice2 that Sprouse was convicted in Florida of lewd or lascivious offenses
committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years old in August of
2000.3 The record does not reveal when he moved to the Commonwealth, but he
2
Kentucky Rules of Evidence (“KRE”) 201(b)(2).
3
FLA. STAT. § 800.04 at the time Sprouse committed the crime(s):
800.04 Lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault or act upon or in
presence of child.
A person who:
(1) Handles, fondles, or assaults any child under the age of 16
years in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner;
(2) Commits actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual
intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sadomasochistic abuse,
actual lewd exhibition of the genitals, or any act or conduct which
simulates that sexual battery is being or will be committed upon
any child under the age of 16 years or forces or entices the child to
commit any such act;
(3) Commits an act defined as sexual battery under s.
794.011(1)(h) upon any child under the age of 16 years; or
(4) Knowingly commits any lewd or lascivious act in the presence
of any child under the age of 16 years,
without committing the crime of sexual battery, commits a felony
of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.
-2-
first registered with the Kentucky State Police (“KSP”) in 2015, according to his
Florida sex offender registry.4 He is a lifetime registrant, as indicated by his entry
on the Kentucky State Police Sex Offender Registry,5 of which we likewise take
judicial notice. Lifetime registrants are required to verify the accuracy of their
address with the Registry every ninety (90) days.6
In 2019, KSP sent Sprouse address verification notifications. He
failed to respond to the first, sent on June 10, 2019, and to the second, sent via
certified mail on July 11, 2019. On August 21, 2019, the Warren County Sheriff
was notified by KSP that Sprouse was not compliant with the registry. He was
found at the last address listed on the registry and was arrested. He was charged
with a violation of KRS 17.510 and was released on bond.
775.083, or s. 775.084. Neither the victim’s lack of chastity nor the
victim's consent is a defense to the crime proscribed by this
section. A mother’s breastfeeding of her baby does not under any
circumstance violate this section.
FLORIDA SENATE, https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/1998/800.04 (last accessed Jan. 9,
2023).
4
We take judicial notice of Sprouse’s Florida registry pursuant to KRE 201. Sexual Offenders
and Predator Search, Florida Dep’t of Law Enforcement
https://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/sops/home.jsf (last accessed Jan. 9, 2023).
5
Kentucky State Police Sex Offender Registry, http://kspsor.state.ky.us/Home/QuickSearch (last
accessed Jan. 9, 2023).
6
KRS 17.510(13)(a).
-3-
Sprouse appeared before the circuit court with retained counsel for
several appearances, both in person and via Zoom during the novel coronavirus
pandemic. Ultimately, he entered a conditional Alford7 plea of guilt, reserving his
right to appeal the application of KRS 17.510(11) to him. He was sentenced to
two-years’ incarceration, probated for five years. He now appeals his conviction
and sentence.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The question presented here is a pure question of law. Therefore, our
review is de novo. “Whether [a person] has been convicted of a sexual offense and
is required to register as such are questions of law. The standard of review for
questions of law is de novo.” Hamilton-Smith v. Commonwealth, 285 S.W.3d 307,
308 (Ky. App. 2009) (citing Floyd County Bd. Of Educ. v. Ratliff, 955 S.W.2d 921(Ky. 1997)).
ANALYSIS
The argument presented by Sprouse is not well taken. Under his
theory, the convicted sex offender has no responsibility to cooperate with the KSP
7
“An Alford plea is a ‘plea of guilty,’ regardless of any denial of underlying facts, and clearly
constitutes a criminal conviction.” Pettiway v. Commonwealth, 860 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Ky.
1993).
-4-
in doing their duty under the law to validate the addresses of lifetime registrants
every ninety (90) days. We cannot agree with this interpretation.
Sprouse was charged with violating KRS 17.510(11), which reads:
Any person required to register under this section who
knowingly violates any of the provisions of this section
or prior law is guilty of a Class D felony for the first
offense and a Class C felony for each subsequent offense.
Sprouse wishes to convince us to read the statute as putting the onus
on KSP to validate the addresses of lifetime registrants every ninety (90) days,
with no responsibility of the registrant to comply. KRS 17.510(13)(a) reads, in
pertinent part:
The cabinet shall verify the addresses, names, motor
vehicle operator’s license numbers, and government-
issued identification card numbers of individuals required
to register under this section. Verification shall occur at
least once every ninety (90) days for a person required to
register under KRS 17.520(2)[.]
He argues that since the statute reads “the cabinet shall verify[,]” only the cabinet
has a duty under the statute, and the registrant has no duty to respond to the
attempts by the cabinet to verify the information. However, such an interpretation
renders the entire registration system ineffectual if there is no requirement of
compliance with verification on the part of the registrant. We must always
interpret statutes in a way which gives each provision meaning and purpose.
“One of the most basic interpretative canons” of statutory
interpretation is that “[a] statute should be construed so
-5-
that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part
will be inoperative or superfluous, void or
insignificant[.]” Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303,
314, 129 S. Ct. 1558, 173 L. Ed. 2d 443 (2009) (quoting
Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101, 124 S. Ct. 2276, 159 L.
Ed. 2d 172 (2004) (internal citation omitted)).
Travelers Indemnity Company v. Armstrong, 565 S.W.3d 550, 563 (Ky. 2018).
Further, a review of the regulations will reveal that there is outlined
therein a clear duty on the part of the registrant to cooperate in verifying his or her
residence information:
Section 5. Sex Offender Registry Address Verification Forms.
A registrant shall verify the accuracy of the registrant
information contained in the appropriate Sex Offender
Registry Address Verification Form (#SOR 1T, #SOR
1L, #SOR 1WL, and #SOR 1WT) mailed to him or her
by the department.
....
(3) At least once every ninety (90) days, the
department shall mail an Address Verification
Form (#SOR 1L) to the last known address of each
lifetime registrant that resides in Kentucky.
....
(5) Completion of Sex Offender Registry Address
Verification Forms. A registrant shall:
(a) Complete each item in the Address
Verification Form;
(b) Sign the Address Verification Form on
the signature line in ink; and
-6-
(c) Mail the completed Address Verification
Form to the department on the day the form
is completed.
502 KAR8 31:020 (emphasis added).
Duly promulgated administrative regulations have the “force and
effect of law.” Woods v. Commonwealth, 599 S.W.3d 894, 897 (Ky. App. 2020)
(quoting Linkous v. Darch, 323 S.W.2d 850, 852 (Ky. 1959)). Sprouse’s argument
is totally without merit.
CONCLUSION
The Kentucky State Police Sex Offender Registry is the
Commonwealth’s implementation of federal law, the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act, Title I of which is the Sexual Offender Registration and
Notification Act.9 There are penalties for states and jurisdictions which do not
enact statutory and regulatory schemes which comply with the dictates of the
federal law.10 The federal law requires jurisdictions:
to have procedures in place for conducting regular
registration appearances and ensuring that sex offenders
immediately update important registration information in
the interim. If a sex offender fails to appear for
8
Kentucky Administrative Regulations.
9
34 United States Code § 20901 et seq.
10
See Lori McPherson, The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (Sorna) at 10 Years:
History, Implementation, and the Future, 64 DRAKE L. REV. 741 (2016).
-7-
registration or absconds from his or her registration
responsibilities, a jurisdiction must have a mechanism to
investigate, apprehend, and prosecute the offender, where
appropriate.
McPherson, supra, at 761 (citations omitted).
Kentucky has devised a statutory and regulatory scheme which
complies with this federal law, and as a lifetime registrant, Sprouse was required
under Kentucky law to verify the information in his registration every ninety (90)
days. This frequency of verification satisfies the requirements of the federal law.11
The methodology of mailing the verification forms to the registrant is compliant
with the guidance of the Attorney General of the United States. Id.
Thus, jurisdictions may require verification of
registration information with greater frequency than that
required by section 116, and may wish to include in their
systems additional means of verification for registration
information, such as mailing address verification forms
to the registered residence address that the sex offender is
required to sign and return, and cross-checking
information provided by the sex offender for inclusion in
the registry against other records systems.
11
Section 116 of SORNA states that “[a] sex offender shall appear in
person, allow the jurisdiction to take a current photograph, and
verify the information in each registry in which that offender is
required to be registered not less frequently than”: (i) Each year
for a tier I sex offender, (ii) every six months for a tier II sex
offender, and (iii) every three months for a tier III sex offender.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; THE NATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR SEX OFFENDER
REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION, 73 FR 38030-01, 38067.
-8-
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE NATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR SEX
OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION, 73 FR 38030-01, 38068.
The conviction is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Tim Hendrix Daniel Cameron
Bowling Green, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
Matthew F. Kuhn
Solicitor General
Brett R. Nolan
Deputy Solicitor General
Daniel J. Grabowski
Assistant Solicitor General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-9-