Z.B. v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 121
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
Reason: I attest to the
accuracy and integrity of this
document
Date: 2021-06-21 14:09:13
Foxit PhantomPDF Version:
9.7.5
DIVISION IV
No. CR-19-869

Opinion Delivered February 19, 2020
Z.B.
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 43JV-08-325]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BARBARA ELMORE,
APPELLEE JUDGE

REVERSED AND REMANDED

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

ZB appeals from the order of the Lonoke County Circuit Court denying his petition

to terminate his obligation to register as a sex offender. He contends that the court

misinterpreted the relevant statute, and the State concedes error. We agree with the parties;

accordingly, we reverse and remand.

ZB was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for the offense of second-degree sexual

assault in February 2009. He was subsequently ordered to register as a sex offender. In June

2019, he filed a petition to terminate his obligation to register as a sex offender. ZB argued

that because he was now older than twenty-one years of age and more than ten years had

passed since his adjudication, he was entitled to relief without the presentation of evidence

pursuant to subsection (j) of the juvenile sex-offender-registration statute, Arkansas Code

Annotated section 9-27-356 (Repl. 2015). The State argued that ZB was entitled to relief

only upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence that he does not pose a threat to the
safety of others. ZB responded that the State’s position renders subsection (j) superfluous.

The circuit court agreed with the State and found that ZB did not present evidence to meet

his burden.

Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-356 addresses removal from the registry:

(h) The juvenile may petition the court to have his or her name removed
from the sex offender register at any time while the court has jurisdiction over the
juvenile or when the juvenile turns twenty-one (21) years of age, whichever is later.

(i) The juvenile division of circuit court judge shall order the juvenile’s name
removed from the sex offender register upon proof by a preponderance of the
evidence that the juvenile does not pose a threat to the safety of others.

(j) If the court does not order the juvenile’s name removed from the sex
offender register, the juvenile shall remain on the sex offender register for ten (10)
years from the last date on which the juvenile was adjudicated a delinquent or found
guilty as an adult for a sex offense or until the juvenile turns twenty-one (21) years
of age, whichever is longer.

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-356.

ZB argues that the circuit court misinterpreted the statute by applying the standard

in subsection (i) to a case in which both conditions in subsection (j) are met. He contends

that subsection (j) applies when a court does not order the juvenile’s name removed pursuant

to subsections (h) and (i). Because he has turned twenty-one years of age and more than

ten years have passed from the last date he was adjudicated a delinquent or found guilty as

an adult for a sex offense, he contends that he was entitled to removal from the registry.

The State now agrees with ZB’s interpretation of the statute.

The correct application and interpretation of an Arkansas statute is a question of law,

which this court decides de novo. State v. V.H., 2013 Ark. 344, 429 S.W.3d 243. The

basic rule of statutory construction to which all interpretive guides must yield is to give

2
effect to the intent of the General Assembly. Id. When reviewing issues of statutory

interpretation, 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. Id. In

interpreting a statute, we construe it so that no word is left void, superfluous, or insignificant,

and we give meaning and effect to every word in the statute, if possible. Myers v. State,

2017 Ark. App. 617, 535 S.W.3d 301.

Applying these standards, we agree with the interpretation submitted by the parties.

The plain language of the statute does not require that a juvenile prove by a preponderance

of the evidence that he or she does not pose a threat to the safety of others if the conditions

in subsection (j) are met. There is no dispute that those conditions have been met here;

thus, ZB was entitled to have his name removed from the registry. We reverse and remand

for the circuit court to enter an order consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

VAUGHT and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

James Law Firm, by: Michael Kiel Kaiser and William O. “Bill” James, Jr., for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Brooke Jackson Gasaway, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

3