Court Opinion

ID: 9364847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 15:04:31.312131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:40.733484
License: Public Domain

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-