Opinion ID: 2541529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: SOAU is a Program for Purposes of Section 559.115

Text: This Court now must determine if the SOAU is a 120-day program contemplated under the terms of section 559.115.3. The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to effectuate legislative intent through reference to the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language. State v. Graham, 204 S.W.3d 655, 656 (Mo. banc 2006). When the words are clear, there is nothing to construe beyond applying the plain meaning of the law. State v. Rowe, 63 S.W.3d 647, 649 (Mo. banc 2002). A court will look beyond the plain meaning of the statute only when the language is ambiguous or would lead to an absurd or illogical result. Akins v. Dir. of Revenue, 303 S.W.3d 563, 565 (Mo. banc 2010). There is no dispute the SOAU is operated by the DOC and lasts 120 days, but no case has addressed directly whether it is a program. Valentine cites two cases that discuss the SOAU, and both assume it is a 120-day program under section 559.115.3. In State v. Bryan, 335 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App. S.D.2011), the court described the SOAU as the 120-day sexual offender treatment program pursuant to section 559.115.3. Id. at 2. Similarly, in Wilhite v. State, 339 S.W.3d 573 (Mo.App. W.D.2011), the offender was sentenced under section 559.115 to placement in the SOAU, and the trial court had to determine whether it would be an abuse of discretion to release the offender on probation. Id. at 575. While the language of Bryan and Wilhite support a finding that the SOAU is a 120-day program under 559.115, they are not dispositive as this specific question was not raised in those cases. Both parties provided this Court with exhibits outlining the DOC's policies and procedures concerning the SOAU's implementation. The parties agree one of the primary purposes of the SOAU is to assist the circuit court in determining whether the offender should be released back into the community based upon the offender's risk of re-offending and amenability to treatment. The question upon which the parties diverge is whether the SOAU is a program and whether it must provide some form of treatment to be considered a program for purposes of section 559.115.3. Valentine argues the statute does not require that an offender be placed in a treatment program, only that the offender participates in a program at the DOC that lasts 120 days. Valentine presented a DOC document wherein the SOAU is described as a 120-day residential program that ... is designed to assess community risk and sex offender treatment needs. (Emphasis added). Valentine does not believe treatment is a necessary prerequisite under section 559.115.3 to constitute a program. However, he argues alternatively that the SOAU's assessment is a part of the treatment process. To support this argument, Valentine offered a DOC document that described the SOAU as offering basic relapse prevention education in conjunction with its assessment. The state claims the SOAU merely assesses an offender and does not provide treatment, in contrast to other statutory programs established by the DOC. [2] The state also offered a DOC document specifically stating the SOAU provides an intensive assessment in order to determine the nature and extent of psychopathology, risk for reoffending and psychological treatment needs of sex offenders. The unit does not provide treatment.  (Emphasis added). The DOC's own conflicting descriptions of the SOAU's purpose does nothing to resolve the issue of whether the SOAU is a program and whether it provides treatment during the course of the offender's assessment. However, when examining the plain language of section 559.115.3, there is no requirement that a program be a treatment program. Rather, section 559.115.3 merely states, The court may recommend placement of an offender in a [DOC] one hundred twenty-day program. It is the length of the program, rather than its purpose, that is stated explicitly. This is bolstered by a further reading of this subsection that specifically provides that shock incarceration is a program although it may not involve treatment. Moreover, as stated earlier, the judgment, the DOC's recommendation, and the court's action in holding a hearing and examining the issue for an abuse of discretion all demonstrate Valentine's placement in the SOAU was treated as a program. Finally, even assuming arguendo the program must provide some form of treatment, a DOC document described the SOAU as offering basic relapse prevention education in conjunction with its assessment. Therefore, the SOAU is a program for purposes of section 559.115.3 and provides a treatment component through the assessment process.