Title: Hill v. Boyer
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC95088
State: Missouri
Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court
Date: February 9, 2016

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
 
 
 
WILLIAM DAVID HILL,  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 Appellant, 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. SC95088 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
OLIVER “GLENN” BOYER, SHERIFF OF 
)  
JEFFERSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Respondent.  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY 
Honorable Timothy S. Miller, Judge  
Opinion issued February 9, 2016 
William David Hill appeals a judgment1 affirming the denial of his application for 
a concealed carry permit pursuant to section 571.101, RSMo Supp. 2012.  The judgment 
is affirmed.  
I. Facts 
The facts are undisputed.  In 1973, Mr. Hill pleaded guilty to and was convicted of 
felony forgery.  Mr. Hill was sentenced to a two-year term of imprisonment.   The court 
                                                          
 
1 This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution because 
Mr. Hill is challenging the validity of section 571.101. 
suspended execution of the sentence of imprisonment and placed Mr. Hill on probation 
for two years.   
Mr. Hill successfully completed his probation in 1975 and was discharged from 
probation pursuant to section 549.111.2, RSMo 1969.   Section 549.111.2 provided that 
individuals discharged from probation were “restored all the rights and privileges of 
citizenship.”   The statute was repealed in 1977.   
In 2013, Mr. Hill submitted an application for a concealed carry permit.   
Concealed carry permits are issued by “the sheriff or his or her designee of the county or 
city in which the applicant resides” provided that the applicant meets certain 
qualifications.   Section 571.101.2(3) provides that county sheriffs may only issue 
concealed carry permits to individuals who have “not pled guilty to or entered a plea of 
nolo contendre or been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term 
exceeding one year ….”   The sheriff of Jefferson County denied Mr. Hill’s application 
due to his 1973 felony forgery conviction.  
The circuit court affirmed the sheriff’s denial of the concealed carry permit.  The 
court reasoned that, although section 549.111.2 restored to Mr. Hill “all the rights and 
privileges of citizenship,” the statutory restoration of rights did not negate the fact that 
Mr. Hill had pleaded guilty to felony forgery.  Section 571.101.2(3) expressly limits the 
availability of a concealed carry permit to individuals who have “not pled guilty to … a 
crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ….”   The circuit court, 
therefore, concluded Mr. Hill’s prior guilty plea rendered him ineligible for a concealed 
carry permit.  Mr. Hill appeals.    
3 
 
II. Standard of Review 
“On review of a court-tried case, an appellate court will affirm the circuit court’s 
judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of 
the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.”   Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 
189, 198-199 (Mo. banc 2014).  Challenges to the constitutional validity of a state statute 
are subject to de novo review.  State v. Honeycutt, 421 S.W.3d 410, 414 (Mo. banc 2013).   
“Statutes are presumed constitutional and will be found unconstitutional only if they 
clearly contravene a constitutional provision.”  Id.  “The person challenging the validity 
of the statute has the burden of proving the act clearly and undoubtedly violates the 
constitutional limitations.”  Id. 
III. Article I, section 23 of the Missouri Constitution 
Mr. Hill’s first and second points on appeal assert that the constitutional validity of 
section 571.101 must be analyzed according to article I, section 23 of the Missouri 
Constitution as amended after the trial court entered its judgment.  Mr. Hill argues that 
the amended version of article I, section 23 requires strict scrutiny of the constitutional 
validity of denying convicted felons a concealed carry permit pursuant to section 
571.101.  He asserts that this Court should either remand the case to the circuit court so 
the court can apply the amended version of article I, section 23 or reverse the judgment 
and order the circuit court to instruct the sheriff to issue a concealed carry permit to Mr. 
Hill. 
The trial court’s judgment was entered in April 2014.   Article I, section 23 was 
amended in August 2014.  This Court has previously determined that the August 2014 
4 
 
amendment to article I, section 23 applies prospectively only.  State v. Merritt, 467 
S.W.3d 808, 812 (Mo. banc 2015).  Therefore, the August 2014 amendment to article I, 
section 23 does not apply to this case.   Mr. Hill’s first and second points are denied.  
IV.  Section 549.111 
Mr. Hill next asserts that he is entitled to a concealed carry permit because 
when he was discharged from probation in 1975, section 549.111 provided that 
individuals discharged from probation were “restored all the rights and privileges 
of citizenship.”  Mr. Hill asserts that this statutory restoration of rights is legally 
equivalent to a governor’s pardon and had the effect of negating the fact of his 
prior conviction.  Mr. Hill concludes that, because the fact of his prior conviction is 
negated, the trial court erred by denying a concealed carry permit due to his 1973 
forgery conviction.   
Mr. Hill cites Guastello v. Dep’t of Liquor Control, 536 S.W.2d 21 (Mo. banc 
1976), for the proposition that his conviction was “obliterated” as a result of his discharge 
from probation and restoration of rights under section 549.111.   In Guastello, this Court 
held that a gubernatorial pardon negated a conviction and entitled an applicant to a liquor 
license even though section 311.060(1), RSMo 1969, provided that a liquor license could 
not be granted to a person “who has been convicted  . . .  of a violation of the provisions 
of any law applicable to the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor.”   Id. at 22.    
Mr. Hill’s case is materially distinguishable from Guastello.   The statute at issue 
in Guastello disqualified applicants based solely on the existence of a prior conviction.   
5 
 
In contrast, section 571.101.2(3) bars a sheriff from issuing a concealed carry permit to 
individuals who “pled guilty to” or were convicted of an offense with an authorized 
punishment of more than one year of imprisonment.  The Guastello Court recognized the 
distinction between disqualifying an applicant based on the existence of a prior 
conviction as opposed to the fact of a prior guilty plea:   
[I]f disqualification is based solely on the fact of conviction the 
eligibility of the offender is restored. On the other hand, if good 
character (requiring an absence of guilt) is a necessary qualification, 
the offender is not automatically once again qualified—merely as a 
result of the pardon.  
 
Id. at 23.  Even if this Court assumes for the sake of argument that Mr. Hill’s 
statutory restoration of rights “obliterated” the fact of his prior conviction, the 
fact that he pleaded guilty is not negated because “Guastello held only that the 
fact of conviction was obliterated and not the fact of guilt.”  State v. Bachman, 
675 S.W.2d 41, 51 (Mo. App. 1984).    Therefore, “an offender’s conviction 
(pertaining to guilt as opposed to the mere conviction) [can] be considered and 
used in future determinations involving an offender.”  Id. 
 
Mr. Hill admits that he pleaded guilty to an offense that bars the sheriff 
from issuing a concealed weapon permit to Mr. Hill.   
V. Article I, section 13 
Mr. Hill argues that section 571.101 is unconstitutionally retrospective to 
the extent that the statute prohibits the sheriff from issuing a concealed carry 
permit based on the 1973 forgery conviction.   Mr. Hill argues that the denial 
impairs his vested right in the restoration of the rights and privileges of 
6 
 
citizenship pursuant to section 549.111.   Alternatively, Mr. Hill asserts that 
section 571.101.2(2) is unconstitutional because it imposes a new legal 
disability by disqualifying him from obtaining a permit to carry a concealed 
weapon.   Neither claim has merit. 
Article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution provides “[t]hat no ex post facto 
law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or 
making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, can be enacted.”   The 
ex post facto clause applies to criminal cases, while the retrospective laws clause applies 
to civil cases.   Honeycutt, 421 S.W.3d at 423.  A retrospective law “is one which creates 
a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability with respect to 
transactions or considerations already past.”  Squaw Creek Drainage Dist. v. Turney, 138 
S.W. 12, 16 (Mo. 1911).   This Court has also recognized that a civil law is 
unconstitutionally retrospective if it takes away or interferes with a “vested right.”   
Jerry-Russell Bliss, Inc. v. Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Comm’n, 702 S.W.2d 77, 81-82 (Mo. 
banc 1985).    
 
Mr. Hill concedes that when he was discharged from probation in 1975 it was a 
violation of Missouri law to carry a concealed weapon.   See 564.610, RSMo 1969.   
Missouri law did not provide for the carrying of concealed weapons until section 571.101 
was enacted in 2003.  Section 571.101 creates a limited statutory right to carry concealed 
weapons that expressly prohibits sheriffs from issuing a concealed carry permit to 
individuals who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to offenses with an authorized 
punishment in excess of one year.   When Mr. Hill was discharged from probation in 
7 
 
1975, the restoration of his rights did not include the right to carry a concealed weapon.   
The subsequent enactment of the limited statutory right to carry a concealed weapon 
pursuant to section 571.101 did not vest Mr. Hill with the right to carry a concealed 
weapon.   Section 571.101.2(3) does not impair any of Mr. Hill’s vested rights.    
Mr. Hill also asserts that section 571.101.2(3) imposes a new disability by 
utilizing the fact of his past guilty plea and conviction to disqualify him from obtaining a 
concealed carry permit.   Section 571.101.2(3) does not impose a new legal disability on 
Mr. Hill.  Section 571.101.2 provides that “a concealed carry endorsement issued 
pursuant to subsection 7 of this section shall be issued by the sheriff or his or her 
designee” subject to several limitations.  As noted, section 571.101.2(3) provides that one 
limitation is that the applicant must not have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of an 
offense with an authorized punishment of one or more years imprisonment.    Section 
571.101.7 provides that if an “application is approved, the sheriff shall issue a certificate 
of qualification for a concealed carry permit endorsement to the applicant within a period 
not to exceed three working days after his or her approval of the application.”  Section 
571.101 imposes legal obligations on county sheriffs to issue concealed weapon permits 
to qualified applicants but imposes no legal obligation or disability on applicants.    
As this Court explained in State v. Young, 362 S.W.3d 386, 391-92 (Mo. banc 
2012), a statute does not create a legal “disability” in violation of article I, section 13 
when “ordinary regulatory actions . . . take into account past conduct or past conditions in 
providing current or prospective regulation.”  Id. at 391.  For instance, if a new statute 
provided that a felon could not serve as presiding commissioner of a county, there would 
8 
 
be no unconstitutionally retrospective legal disability on a convict who aspired to serve in 
that role “because he has no affirmative obligation to take any action whatsoever to 
comply with [that statute].”  Id.   Likewise, section 571.101 imposes a regulatory burden 
on county sheriffs rather than permit applicants and does not compel Mr. Hill or any 
other applicant to undertake any particular action.  Therefore, section 571.101 does not 
impose a new legal disability on Mr. Hill and does not violate article I, section 13. 
Mr. Hill had no vested right to a concealed weapon permit.  The denial of his 
application based on his prior guilty plea did not create an unconstitutionally 
retrospective law.    
The judgment is affirmed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_________________________________  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Richard B. Teitelman, Judge 
 
All concur.