ALLEN R. KILLIAN, Respondent, vs. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, Appellant.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

ALLEN R. KILLIAN, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) ) MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL,) ) Appellant. ) No. SD33832 FILED: November 23, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEW MADRID COUNTY Honorable Fred Copeland, Judge REVERSED AND REMANDED (Before Scott, P.J., Bates, J., and Sheffield, C.J.) PER CURIAM. Allen Killian filed a petition “pursuant to Section 589.400(7)” to remove his name from Missouri’s sex offender registry. 1 The local prosecutor, notified per §589.400.9, offered no objection. After a brief hearing at which only Killian and his attorney appeared, the trial court entered an order in Killian’s favor. Statutory citations are to RSMo as amended through 2012; rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2014). Since there is no §589.400(7), we presume Killian meant to cite §589.400.7. Killian did not request relief from registering under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. §16901 et seq.; compare Dunivan v. State, 466 S.W.3d 514, 516 n.1 (Mo. banc 2015). 1 Shortly thereafter, the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) “and the State of Missouri, through the Attorney General’s Office” moved to intervene as a matter of right. Their motion was denied. Eventually, a final judgment was entered in favor of Killian. MSHP appeals, asserting in part trial court error in denying its motion to intervene. 2 We must agree. Under Dunivan (decided after the trial court’s ruling), MSHP satisfies Rule 52.12(a)(2)’s elements and was entitled to intervene in Killian’s case below. See 466 S.W.3d at 519-20. We grant MSHP’s third point, reverse the trial court’s judgment, and remand for further proceedings. 3 The “State of Missouri, through the Attorney General’s Office” did not join the notice of appeal. 3 As in Dunivan, we do not reach MSHP’s other, merit-based points because MSHP will have the opportunity to present those arguments to the trial court on remand. 2 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.