Opinion ID: 2156527
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: Santos asserts that the trial justice misinterpreted the plain meaning of the language contained in the fairly complex statutory scheme that is set forth in § 11-37-16. He maintains that § 11-37-16(a) specifies the classes of individuals who have a duty to register as sexual offenders and that § 11-37-16(b) merely creates certain ministerial duties by requiring certain specified officers to inform those individuals who have a duty to register of the existence of that duty. We begin our consideration of the pertinent statutory language with a restatement of some basic principles. As we have often noted, [i]t is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, this Court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings. Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223, 1226 (R.I.1996); see also Keystone Elevator Co., 850 A.2d at 918; Driscoll v. Karroo Land Co., 600 A.2d 722, 724 (R.I.1991). [5] It is similarly well established that when we examine an unambiguous statute, `there is no room for statutory construction and we must apply the statute as written.' State v. DiCicco, 707 A.2d 251, 253 (R.I.1998) (quoting In re Denisewich, 643 A.2d 1194, 1197 (R.I.1994)); see also In re Abby D., 839 A.2d at 1224; Arnold v. Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training Board of Review, 822 A.2d 164, 168 (R.I.2003). The plain statutory language is the best indicator of legislative intent. Martone v. Johnston School Committee, 824 A.2d 426, 431 (R.I.2003) (When interpreting a statute, our ultimate goal is to give effect to the General Assembly's intent.    The best evidence of such intent can be found in the plain language used in the statute. Thus, a clear and unambiguous statute will be literally construed.); see also Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 490, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917) ([T]he language being plain, and not leading to absurd or wholly impracticable consequences, it is the sole evidence of the ultimate legislative intent.); Hathaway v. Hathaway, 52 R.I. 39, 40, 156 A. 800, 801 (1931) (`It is an elementary proposition that courts only determine, by construction, the scope and intent of a law when the law itself is ambiguous or doubtful. If a law is plain, and within the legislative power, it declares itself, and nothing is left for interpretation.') (quoting State v. Duggan, 15 R.I. 403, 409, 6 A. 787, 788 (1886)). Moreover, in approaching a statute, it is axiomatic that this Court will not broaden statutory provisions by judicial interpretation unless such interpretation is necessary and appropriate in carrying out the clear intent or defining the terms of the statute. Simeone v. Charron, 762 A.2d 442, 448-49 (R.I.2000). These venerable principles of statutory interpretation have guided our approach to this case. It is undisputed that, by virtue of an explicit savings clause (discussed in footnote 1, supra ), § 11-37-16 is applicable to the instant case. The most pertinent portions of § 11-37-16 provide as follows: (a) Duty to Register. Any Person who since July 1, 1992, has been, or shall hereafter be, convicted of any offense in violation of this chapter, or convicted in another state of first degree sexual assault which if committed in this state would constitute a violation of this chapter, shall, within sixty (60) days after July 21, 1992, or within thirty (30) days of coming into any city or town in which the person shall reside, register with the chief of police of the city or town. (b) Notice of duty to register  Prisoner or inmate. Any person who, after July 1, 1992, is discharged or paroled from a jail, prison, or other institution where he or she was confined because of the commission or attempt to commit one of the above mentioned offenses or is released from a state hospital to which he or she was committed as a mentally disordered sex offender shall, prior to discharge, parole, or release, be informed of his or her duty to register under this section by the official in charge of the place of confinement or hospital and the official shall require the person to read and sign such form as may be required by the attorney general stating that the duty of the person to register under this section has been explained to the person. The official in charge of the place of confinement or hospital shall obtain the address where the person expects to reside upon his or her discharge, parole, or release and shall report the address to the attorney general. The official in charge of the place of confinement or hospital shall give one copy of the form to the person, and shall send one copy to the attorney general and one copy to the appropriate law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the place the person expects to reside upon discharge, parole, or release. If the conviction which makes the person subject to this section is a felony conviction, the official in charge shall, not later than forty-five (45) days prior to the scheduled release of the person, send one copy to the appropriate law enforcement agency having local jurisdiction where the person expects to reside upon discharge, parole, or release; one copy to the prosecuting agency which prosecuted the person; and one copy to the attorney general. The official in charge of the place of confinement shall retain one copy. All such forms shall, if the conviction which makes the person subject to this section is a felony conviction, be transmitted within such times as to be received by the local law enforcement agency, and prosecuting agency thirty (30) days prior to the discharge, parole, or release of the person. It seems clear to us that § 11-37-16(a) defines the universe of those who were, or are, under a legislatively imposed duty to register. [6] By contrast, § 11-37-16(b) does not purport to broaden or shrink the just-defined universe, but rather directs the official in charge of a jail, prison, or state hospital where a sex offender has been confined or committed to inform a person being discharged or paroled or released from one of those institutions of that person's duty to register under this section. The present controversy could have been averted if the drafters of the statute had inserted the words if any or  vel non  after the phrase duty to register in § 11-37-16(b). The absence of such words does not, however, render the statutory language ambiguous; the addition of such words would simply have made clear language read even more clearly. The crucial point is that § 11-37-16(b) should not be read as broadening the pool of those upon whom § 11-37-16(a) imposes a duty. [7] In short, § 11-37-16(a) imposes registration duties upon certain sexual offenders, whereas § 11-37-16(b) instructs officials to inform those offenders of their duty. [8] The provisions of § 11-37-16(c) are consistent with our reading of the statutory scheme before us. Section 11-37-16(c) provides:  Notice of duty to register  Probationer or one paying fine. Any person who, after July 1, 1992, is convicted in this state of the commission or attempt to commit any of the above mentioned offenses and who is released on probation or discharged upon payment of a fine shall, prior to release or discharge, be informed of the duty to register under this section by the court in which the person has been convicted and the court shall require the person to read and sign such form as may be required by the attorney general, stating that the duty of the person to register under this section has been explained to him or her. As the state conceded at oral argument, the individuals described in § 11-37-16(c) are already encompassed within the group delineated in § 11-37-16(a). Accordingly, to accept the state's position that subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of § 11-37-16 define four identifiable classes of individuals upon whom a duty to register is imposed would require us to interpret subsection (c) as repeating the duty-imposition aspect of subsection (a). We are not inclined to ascribe such a repetitive purpose to the legislation. See Kingsley v. Miller, 120 R.I. 372, 376, 388 A.2d 357, 360 (1978) (This court will not ascribe to the General Assembly an intent to enact legislation which is devoid of any purpose, inefficacious, or nugatory.); see also Pullen v. State, 707 A.2d 686, 691 (R.I.1998). Since the unambiguous language of § 11-37-16(a) did not impose a duty upon the defendant to register as a sexual offender and since § 11-37-16(b) is not directed to offenders, but rather to officials of institutions, we conclude that the motion justice erred in holding that the defendant was required by § 11-37-16(b) to register. [9]