Fountain v. State

285 S.W.3d 706, 103 Ark. App. 15, 2008 Ark. App. LEXIS 489
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedJune 18, 2008
DocketCA CR 08-53
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 285 S.W.3d 706 (Fountain v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fountain v. State, 285 S.W.3d 706, 103 Ark. App. 15, 2008 Ark. App. LEXIS 489 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Sam Bird, Judge.

This case involves the interpretation of our Sex Offender Registration statute, currently codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-901 et seq. (Supp. 2007). Rondd Fountain appeals the sentencing court’s judgment and commitment order of September 12, 2007, which required him to register as a sex offender. He contends that the court did not have statutory authority to order sex-offender registration for the offense of misdemeanor public sexual indecency. 1 We hold that the court acted within the authority of Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-903 (Supp. 2007), and we affirm its order.

We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo, as it is for the appellate court to determine the meaning of a statute. Claver v. Wilbur, 102 Ark. App. 53, 280 S.W.3d 570 (2008). Although the decision of the circuit court is not binding, we will accept its interpretation of the law unless there is a showing that the interpretation was in error. See Langston v. Langston, 371 Ark. 404, 266 S.W.3d 716 (2007); Potter v. City of Tontitown, 371 Ark. 200, 264 S.W.3d 473 (2007).

The basic rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. Id. Rules of construction are not needed when a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, but we will not apply a literal interpretation that results in absurd consequences contrary to legislative intent. See id. The first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. K. C. Props, of N. W. Ark. v. Lowell Invest. Partners 373 Ark. 14, 280 S.W.3d 1 (2008). Ambiguity occurs only if the statute is open to two or more constructions, or where it is of such obscure or doubtful meaning that reasonable minds might disagree or be uncertain as to its meaning. Id.

When the meaning is not clear, the appellate court looks to the language of the statute, the subject matter, the object to be accomplished, the purpose to be served, the remedy provided, the legislative history, and other appropriate means that shed light on the subject. Potter, supra. The statute will be construed so that no word is left void, superfluous, or insignificant; meaning and effect are given to every word if possible, and provisions not included by the legislature will not be read into the statute. See id. Our review includes an examination of the whole act and a reconciliation of all provisions “to make them consistent, harmonious, and sensible in an effort to give effect to every part.” See Ward v. Doss, 361 Ark. 153, 159, 205 S.W.3d 767, 770 (2005). All statutes relevant to the subject matter will be construed, and the meaning of an act will be derived from a holistic reading. Arkansas Hearing Instrument Dispenser Bd. v. Vance, 359 Ark. 325, 197 S.W.3d 495 (2004).

Our decision requires an examination of the following portions of Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-903, the Definitions chapter of our Sex Offender Registration statute:

(12)(A) “Sex offense” includes, but is not limited to:
(i) The following offenses:
(a) Rape, § 5-14-103;
(b) Sexual indecency with a child, § 5-14-110;
(c) Sexual assault in the first degree, § 5-14-124;
(d) Sexual assault in the second degree, § 5-14-125;
(e) Sexual assault in the third degree, § 5-14-126;
(0 Sexual assault in the fourth degree, § 5-14-127;
(g) Incest, § 5-26-202;
(h) Engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for use in visual or print medium, § 5-27-303;
(i) Transportation of minors for prohibited sexual conduct, § 5-27-305;
(j) Employing or consenting to use of a child in a sexual performance, § 5-27-402;
(k) Pandering or possessing visual or print medium depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child, § 5-27-304;
(l) Producing, directing, or promoting a sexual performance by a child, § 5-27-403;
(m) Promoting prostitution in the first degree, § 5-70-104;
(n) Stalking when ordered by the sentencing court to register as a sex offender, § 5-71-229;
(o) Indecent exposure, § 5-14-112, if a felony level offense;
(p) Exposing another person to human immunodeficiency virus when ordered by the sentencing court to register as a sex offender, § 5-14-123;
(q) Kidnapping pursuant to § 5-ll-102(a) when the victim is a minor and the offender is not the parent of the victim;
(r) False imprisonment in the first degree and false imprisonment in the second degree, §§ 5-11-103 and 5-11-104, when the victim is a minor and the offender is not the parent of the victim;
(s) Permitting abuse of a minor pursuant to § 5-27-221;
(t) Computer child pornography, § 5-27-603;
(u) Computer exploitation of a child in the first degree, § 5-27-605(a);
(v) Permanent detention or restraint when the offender is not the parent of the victim, § 5-11-106;
(w) Distributing, possessing, or viewing of matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child, § 5-27-602;
(x) Computer child pornography, § 5-27-603;
(y) Computer exploitation of a child, § 5-27-605;
(z) Internet stalking of a child, § 5-27-306;
(aa) Crime of video voyeurism, § 5-16-101, if a felony level offense;
(bb) Voyeurism, § 5-16-102, if a felony level offense; and
(cc) Any felony-homicide offense under § 5-10-101, § 5-10-102, or § 5-10-104 if the underlying felony is an offense fisted in subdivisions (12)(A)(i)(a)-(y) of this section;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brawner v. State
428 S.W.3d 600 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 S.W.3d 706, 103 Ark. App. 15, 2008 Ark. App. LEXIS 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fountain-v-state-arkctapp-2008.