text:
    Larry CAMPBELL, Sheriff of Leon County, Appellant, v. Alston A. CHIN, Appellee.
    No. 1D11-5712.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 12, 2012.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Scott D. Makar, Solicitor General, and Louis F. Hubener, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, and Terrell C. Madi-gan of Madigan Law Firm, P.L., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Susan Wilkinson Harnden of The Ham-den Law Firm, LLC, Tallahassee, for Ap-pellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Larry Campbell, challenges a final order of the criminal court returning currency that was seized from Appellee, Alston A. Chin, after his arrest for drug charges. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the motion, even though Appellant contended the currency was seized pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, because trial courts have inherent authority over property held in custodia legis. Daniel v. State, 991 So.2d 421, 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (holding that “[A] trial court that has jurisdiction over criminal proceedings has priority jurisdiction over other courts to determine whether property seized for use in criminal proceedings is to be retained or returned to the owner.”) Moreover, the trial court properly determined that the currency was not seized pursuant to the Forfeiture Act because the release signed by Appellant purporting to transfer all interest in the property to the Leon County Sheriffs Department failed to contain a written waiver of Appellee’s right to have the agreement reviewed by the court, a mediator, or an arbitrator. § 923.704(7), Fla. Stat. (2009). We, therefore, affirm the order of the trial court returning the currency to Appellee.

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Debra BUTTRICK, Appellant, v. BY THE SEA RESORTS and Claims Center, Appellees.
    No. 1D11-4916.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 12, 2012.
    Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale and Sean Culliton, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Kimberly J. Fernandes of Kelley, Kro-nenberg, Gilmartin, Fichtel, Wander, Bam-das, Eskalyo & Dunbrack, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, Claimant argues the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred in denying her claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits and the associated penalties, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Because the JCC failed to make a finding as to whether Claimant achieved maximum medical improvement (MMI), meaningful appellate review is impossible. See Univ. of Miami v. West, 8 So.3d 1193, 1193-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding JCC must “make sufficient findings of ultimate facts to permit appellate review”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter to the JCC to clarify Claimant’s MMI status.

Should the JCC find Claimant to be at MMI, she is directed to this Court’s recent opinion addressing the proof necessary to establish a connection between a claimant’s physical limitations and the inability to locate employment after a lengthy job search. See Martinez v. Lake Park Auto Brokers, 60 So.3d 533, 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“This court has never required direct proof of such a connection [between physical limitations and an unsuccessful job search]; rather this is a finding that may be inferred from a claimant’s inability to find employment after an exhaustive job search.... The job search must, however, be conducted in good faith, and JCCs retain discretion to find a job search inadequate.” (citation omitted)).

REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BENTON, C.J., WOLF, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.


text:
    SIBONI, HAMER & BUCHANAN, P.A., Appellant, v. N.W. THIRD STREET PARTNERSHIP, INC., Appellee.
    No. 5D11-2814.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    April 13, 2012.
    Russell W. LaPeer of Landt, Wiechens, LaPeer, & Ayres, LLP, Ocala, for Appellant.
    Daniel C. Hicks of Daniel Hicks, P.A., Ocala, and Stephanie Jackson, Palatka, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the final judgment for damages based upon the breach of a commercial lease. We reverse and remand the judgment for the limited purpose of resolving a factual dispute regarding the payment of the rent due for the month of September 2010. We further instruct the trial court to reserve jurisdiction to address any post-judgment accounting if Ap-pellee is able to relet the premises within the term of the lease. See Horizon Med. Grp., P.A. v. City Ctr. of Charlotte Cnty., Ltd., 779 So.2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and TORPY, JJ„ concur.


author: VILLANTI, Judge.

text:
    Susan Elizabeth FARRELL, Appellant, v. Mark David FARRELL, Appellee.
    No. 2D11-2359.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 13, 2012.
    Jeanie E. Hanna and Ellen E. Ware of Ware Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
    Elizabeth S. Wheeler of Berg & Wheeler, P.A., Brandon, for Appellee.
   VILLANTI, Judge.

Susan Elizabeth Farrell (the Former Wife) appeals the trial court’s post-dissolution order that denied her motion for an award of attorney’s fees that she incurred during her defense against a motion for contempt and sanctions filed by Mark David Farrell (the Former Husband). The Former Husband correctly concedes error, and we reverse.

At a scheduled evidentiary hearing on the Former Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees, the Former Wife was unable to complete her case during the time reserved, and the Former Husband was unable to present any of his evidence. Thus, at the conclusion of the hearing, the parties scheduled a continuation of the hearing for several weeks later. Inexplicably, however, the trial court sua sponte entered an order denying the Former Wife’s motion four days before the date set for the continuation of the hearing.

A trial court’s failure to allow a party to present evidence and to be heard on the issues pending before the court constitutes a denial of due process. See Vollmer v. Key Dev. Props., Inc., 966 So.2d 1022, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that parties have a right to “ ‘introduce evidence at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’ ” and that the violation of this right constitutes a denial of due process (quoting Baron v. Baron, 941 So.2d 1233, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006))); Minakan v. Husted, 27 So.3d 695, 698-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding that it was a violation of due process to refuse to allow the wife to testify and present evidence on a disputed issue of fact). The denial of a litigant’s right to due process requires reversal. See Vollmer, 966 So.2d at 1027. Accordingly, as the Former Husband properly concedes, we must reverse the order denying the Former Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees and remand for further proceedings.

In her initial brief, the Former Wife also argues that this court should order that any further trial court proceedings be held before a different judge based on findings in the trial court’s order that the Former Wife contends reflect bias. Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to make such a ruling, particularly since this issue was raised for the first time in this court. However, if the Former Wife believes she has a good faith basis for moving to recuse the trial judge on remand, she may file such a motion in that court.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

DAVIS and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

      . We commend appellate counsel for her candor in this matter.


text:
    HEARTLAND OF JACKSONVILLE FL, LLC d/b/a Heartland Health Care Center-Jacksonville, HCR Manorcare, Inc., HCR III Healthcare, LLC, HCR II Healthcare, LLC, HCR Healthcare, LLC, Manor Care, Inc., and Heartland Rehabilitation Services of Florida, LLC, Petitioners, v. Christie GEORGE, as personal representative of the Estate of Helen Owens, Respondent.
    No. 1D11-5535.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 16, 2012.
    James H. Wyman of Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for Petitioners.
    Rebecca Bowen Creed and Bryan S. Gowdy of Creed & Gowdy, F. Catfish Abbott of Abbot Law Group, P.A., and Stephen Watrel, Jacksonville, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

DENIED. Delta Health Group v. Estate of Collins, 36 So.3d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

BENTON, C.J., WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.


author: VICTORY, J. KIMBALL, C.J.,

text:
    McLANE SOUTHERN, INC. v. Cynthia BRIDGES, Secretary of the Department of Revenue of the State of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-C-1141.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 24, 2012.
    Rehearing Denied March 9, 2012.

      Antonio Charles Ferachi, Robert Frederick Mulhearn, Jr., Shone Therese Pierre, Donald Michael Bowman, Miranda Yvette Conner, for Applicant.
    Liskow & Lewis, PLC, New Orleans, George Denegre, Jr., Robert S. Angelico, Dena Lynn Olivier, for Respondent.
   VICTORY, J.

LWe granted this writ application to determine whether a wholesale dealer of smokeless tobacco products is liable for an excise tax pursuant to Louisiana’s Tobacco Tax Law, La. R.S. 47:841, et seq. Finding that La. R.S. 47:841 and 47:854 impose an excise tax of 20% on smokeless tobacco products to be paid by the dealer who first sells, uses, consumes, handles or distributes the product in Louisiana, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeal and remand the case to the court of appeal for a determination of all pretermitted issues.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

McLane Southern, Inc. (“McLane”) is a wholesaler of tobacco products located in Mississippi that sells smokeless tobacco to retail establishments in Louisiana. McLane purchases its smokeless tobacco products from U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Brands, Inc. (“UST-Sales”), an affiliate of the manufacturer, U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Manufacturing Company (“UST-Manufacturing”). UST-Manufacturing sells the smokeless tobacco to UST-Sales at one price and UST-Sales sells it to McLane at a higher price, which reflects UST-Sales’ operating costs, profit margins, and value from its marketing, distribution and advertising efforts. McLane also purchases smokeless tobacco from Conwood Sales Company, L.P., which acquires the product | ¿from the manufacturer, Conwood Company, L.P., in an arrangement identical to that of UST-Sales and UST-Manufacturing. In all cases, the sale of the smokeless tobacco to McLane occurs outside of Louisiana-it is shipped to McLane’s facility in Mississippi and then McLane brings it into Louisiana for sale to its retail customers.

McLane, as a Louisiana bonded permitted wholesale tobacco dealer for all tobacco products, has filed monthly tax reports and returns for its cigar, cigarette, smoking tobacco and smokeless tobacco sales and distribution activities in Louisiana. It has paid excise taxes on smokeless tobacco products since 2000, the first year that the tax was imposed on smokeless tobacco. In 2006, McLane filed a petition for refund of tobacco tax paid under protest relative to the smokeless tobacco it had sold in Louisiana in October 2006. Pursuant to an Agreement to Abide between the Department of Taxation (the “Department”) and McLane, McLane continued to pay the tax under protest and this suit covers McLane’s payments under protest for all months following October 2006. Initially, McLane admitted in its petition that it was the wholesale dealer responsible for the payment of the tax, but claimed that the 20% tax rate was to be applied to the price UST-Manufacturing charged UST-Sales for the product, and not, as claimed by the Department, the price UST-Sales charged McLane for the product. Further, McLane claimed that if the tax was based on the -price it paid UST-Sales for the product, then it was unconstitutional as violative of the Commerce Clause. Accordingly, McLane sought a refund of the difference. Two years later, in December 2008, McLane amended its petition to assert that it does not owe any excise tax as assessed by the Department because the Tobacco Tax Law does not impose liability for the payment of the tax on smokeless tobacco on any taxpayer, including McLane. McLane then began paying all the tax on smokeless tobacco launder protest. As of September 2011, McLane has paid $7,688,825.36 in tax under protest.

After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment contending no genuine issues of material fact existed and the legal issue related to the correct application/interpretation of the Tobacco Tax Law. McLane asserted that (1) no tobacco dealers, including McLane, are liable for the tax on smokeless tobacco; (2) the invoice price upon which the 20% rate is assessed is the price the intermediary seller paid for the product from the manufacturer; (3) if the invoice price is based on the price McLane paid for the product then it is unconstitutional. The Department asserted the opposite in its motion. After a hearing, the district court ruled in favor of the Department and granted its motion for summary judgment that (1) McLane is liable for the tax on smokeless tobacco products, (2) the invoice price is based on the price McLane paid for the product, and (3) basing the invoice price on the price McLane paid for the product is not unconstitutional. The district court dismissed McLane’s claim for refund of the taxes paid under protest with prejudice. The First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed, finding that McLane and all other tobacco dealers are not liable for the tobacco tax on smokeless tobacco products under the provisions of the Tobacco Tax Law. McLane Southern, Inc. v. Bridges, 10-1259 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/6/11), 64 So.3d 886. The First Circuit held the other issues surrounding the interpretation of the invoice price and the constitutionality of the definition of invoice price were moot given its determination that McLane was not liable for the tax. We granted the Department’s writ application to determine whether the Tobacco Tax Law imposes liability on dealers of smokeless tobacco products. McLane Southern, Inc. v. Bridges, 11-1141 (La.9/23/11), 70 So.3d 810.

| DISCUSSION

On motions for summary judgment, this Court reviews the record de novo to determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact in dispute, and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966; Louisiana Safety Ass’n of Timbermen Self-Insurers Fund v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 09-0023 (La.6/26/09), 17 So.3d 350, 353. There are no material issues of fact in dispute in this record and the sole issue before us is a question of law which seeks the correct interpretation of La. R.S. 47:841 and 47:854.

In 1932, the Legislature enacted the Louisiana Tobacco Tax Law, found in Sections 841-860 of Title 47 of the Revised Statutes. Acts 1932, No. 4. The Tobacco Tax Law was enacted to achieve two general purposes: the imposition of a tax upon the sale and distribution of tobacco products, and the regulation of those persons who engage in the sale and distribution of such products so as to insure collection of the tax. Southland Corp. v. Collector of Revenue for Louisiana, 321 So.2d 501, 502 (La.1975). La. R.S. 47:854 was enacted with the title “Declaration of intent and purpose of Chapter,” and provides in relevant part as follows:

It is the intent and purpose of this Chapter to levy an excise tax on all cigars, cigarettes and smoking tobacco, as defined in this Chapter, sold, used, consumed, handled or distributed in this state, except as provided in R.S. 47:855 and to collect same from the dealer who first sells, uses, consumes, handles or distributes the same in the State of Louisiana.

Acts 1932, No. 4, § 2. La. R.S. 47:841, entitled “Imposition of tax,” provided “[tjhere is hereby levied a tax upon the sale, use, consumption, handling, or distribution of all cigars, cigarettes and smoking tobacco, as defined herein, within the state of Louisiana, according to the classification and rates hereinafter set forth: ...” Acts 1932, No. 4, § 8. In 2000, La. R.S. 47:841 was amended to add “smokeless tobacco” | Bto the list of tobacco products to be taxed and to add a paragraph providing the rate at which smokeless tobacco was to be taxed. Acts 2000, No. 32, § 1. Accordingly, effective 2000, La. R.S. 47:841 now reads in pertinent part:

There is hereby levied a tax upon the sale, use, consumption, handling, or distribution of all cigars, cigarettes, and smoking and smokeless tobacco, as defined. herein, within the state of Louisiana, according to the classification and rates hereinafter set forth:
E. Smokeless tobacco. Upon smokeless tobacco, a tax of twenty percent of the invoice price as defined in this Chapter.

However, La. R.S. 47:854 was never amended to add “smokeless tobacco” to the list of tobacco products upon which it was the legislature’s “intent and purpose” to levy the tax.

McLane argues that these statutes fail to impose liability upon any taxpayer to pay the tax levied as to smokeless tobacco because while La. R.S. 47:841 levies the tax on “smokeless” tobacco at the rate of 20%, that section does not specifically identify who must pay the tax. Further, La. R.S. 47:854, the only statute that imposes liability on a specific taxpayer, i.e., the “dealer who first sells, uses, consumes, handles or distributes the same in the State of Louisiana,” does not mention “smokeless tobacco.” Thus, as a distributor of “smokeless tobacco,” McLane argues it is not a “dealer” from which the tax imposed by La. R.S. 47:841 can be collected.

“It is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation that when a ‘law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the |filaw shall be applied a written, and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.’ ” Harrah’s Bossier City Inv. Co., LLC v. Bridges, 09-1916 (La.5/11/10), 41 So.3d 438, 446-447 (citing La. C.C. art. 9). This principle applies to tax statutes. Cleco Evangeline, LLC v. Louisiana Tax Com’n, 01-2162 (La.4/3/02), 813 So.2d 351, 354; Tarver v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., 93-1005 (La.3/24/94), 634 So.2d 356, 358. When the law is not clear and unambiguous or its application leads to absurd consequences, we must rely on the secondary rules of statutory interpretation to discern the meaning of the statutes at issue. Id. The fundamental question in all cases of statutory interpretation is legislative intent and the ascertainment of the reason or reasons that prompted the Legislature to enact the law. Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans, 05-0979 (La.4/4/06), 925 So.2d 1202, 1210 (citing In re Succession of Boyter, 99-0761 (La.1/7/00), 756 So.2d 1122, 1128). The rules of statutory construction are designed to ascertain and enforce the intent of the Legislature. Id.; Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044 (La.7/7/99), 739 So.2d 762, 766.

The meaning and intent of a law is determined by considering the law in its entirety and all other laws on the same subject matter and placing a construction on the provision in question that is consistent with the express terms of the law and with the obvious intent of the Legislature in enacting it. Pumphrey, supra at 1210 (citing Boyter, supra at 1129; Stogner, supra at 766). The statute must, therefore, be applied and interpreted in a manner, which is consistent with logic and the presumed fair purpose and intention of the Legislature in passing it. Id. (Citing Boy-ter, supra at 1129.) This is because the rules of statutory construction require that the general intent and purpose of the Legislature in enacting the law must, if possible, be given effect. Id. Courts should give effect to all parts of a statute and should not give a statute an interpretation that makes any part superfluous or meaningless, if that result [ 7can be avoided. Id. It is likewise presumed that the intention of the legislative branch is to achieve a consistent body of law. Id. (Citing Stogner, supra at 766).

This is not a case where the statutes at issue are unclear or ambiguous. This is a case where the wording is clear and the intent of the legislature is clear, yet the legislature did not correctly draft and amend all the necessary sections of the statutory scheme to reflect that intent. It is clear that the legislature intended to impose an excise tax on smokeless tobacco, as La. R.S. 47:841 states that directly. That statute further specifies the rate at which the tax is imposed, i.e., “twenty percent of the invoice price ...” La. R.S. 47:841(E). This tax is imposed on “the sale, use, consumption, handling, or distribution” of the smokeless tobacco. La. R.S. 47:841. However, it is also true that La. R.S. 47:854, the statute expressing the intent and purpose of the Tobacco Tax Law and specifying the party upon whom the excise tax on tobacco products is to be imposed, i.e., “the dealer who first ... distributes the same” in the state, was not amended to include smokeless tobacco. While both parties basically agree that this was a legislative mistake, McLane argues, and the court of appeal found, that courts cannot “correct an error in the Legislature’s expression of its intent” by supplying language to a statute. 64 So.3d at 892. In this specific case, we disagree.

Our fundamental duty, as the “ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the laws of this state,” is “to give effect to the legislature’s intent.” Harrah’s, supra at 447. After considering the Tobacco Tax Law in its entirety, we see that the obvious intent of the legislature is to place a 20% excise tax on the distribution of smokeless tobacco. This much is clear by reading La. R.S. 47:841 alone, which states that the tax is on the “sale, use, consumption, handling, or distribution ” of smokeless tobacco. The Department seeks to collect the tax on the distribution of the product, specifically |sfrom the dealer who first distributes the product in the state. This is the same party from whom the excise tax is collected on all other tobacco products pursuant to La. R.S. 47:854. While it seems that the tax can be collected from McLane as the distributor based on La. R.S. 47:841 alone, assuming that application of La. R.S. 47:854 is necessary, the rules of statutory construction require that we give effect to the legislative intent to tax the distribution of smokeless tobacco by placing a construction on La. R.S. 47:854 that is consistent with that obvious purpose and intent if possible. It is possible to do this by reading smokeless tobacco into the provisions of La. R.S. 47:854 that provide for the tax to be collected from the first distributor of the product in the state. This is in line with another cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that “it will not be presumed that the Legislature inserted idle, meaningless or superfluous language in the statute or that it intended for any part or provision of the statute to be meaningless, redundant, or useless.” ABL Management, Inc. v. Board of Sup’rs of Southern University, 00-0798 (La.11/28/00), 778 So.2d 131, 135; Pumphrey, supra at 1210 (courts should give effect to all parts of a statute and should not give a statute an interpretation that makes any part superfluous or meaningless, if that result can be avoided). Were we to accept McLane’s argument that because smokeless tobacco is not expressly listed in La. R.S. 47:854, neither McLane, nor anyone else, is liable for the tax renders the legislature’s amendment to La. R.S. 47:841 by Acts 2000 No. 32, § 1 meaningless and surplusage from the moment it was enacted.

Other fundamental rules of statutory construction lead to the same result. While the language of both 47:841 and 47:854 is clear, an application of 47:854 that does not include smokeless tobacco would lead to absurd consequences. In order for a court to find a literal application results in “absurd consequences,” “there must be |9a determination by the court that the specific application at issue arising from the literal wording would, if judicially enforced, produce a factual result so inappropriate as to be deemed outside the ‘purpose’ of the law.” P. Raymond Lamonica and Jerry G. Jones, 20 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise: Legislative Law and Procedure, § 7.4 (2011 ed.). Here, a finding that no tax can be imposed on dealers of smokeless tobacco because the legislature failed to amend 47:854 to include smokeless tobacco would be a result outside the purpose of the Tobacco Tax Law as a whole, specifically the 2000 amendment to impose a tax on the distribution of smokeless tobacco.

Finally, even were we to find that the statutes were in conflict and thus unclear or ambiguous, application of the secondary rules of statutory construction would lead to the same result. La. R.S. 47:841 is the specific statute imposing a tax on smokeless tobacco, while La. R.S. 47:854 is the general statute expressing the “intent and purpose” of the Tobacco Tax Statutes. This Court has held that “it is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that when two statutes deal with the same subject matter, if there is a conflict, the statute specifically directed to the matter at issue must prevail as an exception to the statute more general in character.” Burge v. State, 10-2229 (La.2/11/11), 54 So.3d 1110, 1113. Further, this Court has provided that the latest expression of legislative will is considered controlling and prior enactments in conflict are considered as tacitly repealed in the absence of an express repealing clause. Pumphrey, supra. “The legislature is presumed to have acted with deliberation and to have enacted a statute in light of the preceding statutes involving the same subject matter.” Holly & Smith Architects, Inc. v. St. Helena Congregate Facility, Inc., 06-0582 (La.11/29/06), 943 So.2d 1037, 1045. Finally, recent statutory enactments support this view. In 2006, the Legislature, by Acts 2006, No. 826, § 3, enacted La. R.S. 24:177, which provides in part: “[t]he legislature is presumed to have enacted an article or statute in light of the preceding law involving the same subject matter and court decisions construing those articles or statutes, and where the new article or statute is worded differently from the preceding law, the legislature is presumed to have intended to change the law.” La. R.S. 24:177(C).

McLane argues that our reasoning in Cleco prohibits this result. In Cleco we stated that “[a]bsent evidence to the contrary, the language of the statute itself must clearly and unambiguously express the intent to apply to the property in question” and that “[u]nless the words imposing the tax are expressly in the statute, the tax cannot be imposed.” Cleco, supra at 355 (citing Hibernia Nat. Bank in New Orleans v. Louisiana Tax Com’n, 195 La. 43, 54, 196 So. 15, 18 (1940)). Further, we held that “taxing statutes must be strictly construed against the taxing authority; where a tax is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, the construction favorable to the taxpayer is to be adopted.” Cleco, supra at 356 (citing Goudchaux/Maison Blanche, Inc. v. Broussard, 590 So.2d 1159, 1161 (La.1991)). The problem with this argument is that these rules specific to tax laws are applicable only where the laws are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation and the intent of the legislature is ambiguously expressed in the laws. Here, the intent of the legislature is obvious and the laws are subject to only one reasonable interpretation. Therefore, we reject McLane’s argument that we must interpret the Tobacco Tax Law in a manner which would prohibit the Department from collecting excise tax from McLane, for there is no doubt that this is what the Legislature intended.

Having found that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of the Department and holding McLane liable for the tax on its smokeless tobacco products, there remain two other assignments of error that McLane urged in In the court of appeal and to this Court, 1.e.: (1) if it is liable for the tax, the “invoice price” as defined by La. R.S. 47:842(12) upon which the excise tax is imposed is the price McLane pays to its tobacco supplier, rather than the lower manufacturer’ net invoice price as invoiced by the manufacturer to McLane’s tobacco supplier; and (2) the district court erred as a matter of law in adopting the interpretation of La. R.S. 47:842(12) urged by the Department as this interpretation renders the Tobacco Tax Law unconstitutional under the Dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by discriminating against out-of-state wholesalers like McLane. The court of appeal found that by reversing the trial court’s judgment and rendering judgment in favor of McLane, these issues “are rendered moot.” 64 So.3d at 893, n. 6. Because we have reversed the court of appeal’s finding that McLane does not owe the excise tax, we remand the case to the court of appeal to consider these two pretermitted issues.

CONCLUSION

La. R.S. 47:841, as amended in 2000, imposes a 20% excise tax on the distribution of smokeless tobacco in this state. While La. R.S. 47:854, which authorizes the Department to collect the tax from the dealer who first distributes tobacco products in the state, was not likewise amended to include smokeless tobacco in the list of tobacco products to be taxed, it is beyond doubt that the legislature intended to impose the tax on the distribution of smokeless tobacco. It is our duty to give effect to that legislative intent. Further, we must not give a law an interpretation which makes any part superfluous of meaningless. Therefore, we interpret La. R.S. 47:841 and 854 as giving the Department the right to collect a 20% excise tax on 112McLane, as the dealer who first distributes smokeless tobacco in this state, and reverse the court of appeal’s judgment on this issue.

DECREE

For the reasons expressed herein, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and the trial court judgment granting the Department’s motion for summary judgment finding McLane liable for the tax on smokeless tobacco products is reinstated. The case is remanded to the court of appeal to consider McLane’s two remaining assignments of error.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

KIMBALL, Chief Justice, dissents and assigns reasons.

KIMBALL, C.J.,

dissents with reasons.

hi dissent because the Legislature did not define the party from whom the smokeless tobacco tax will be collected. The Legislature clearly intended to impose a tax upon the “sale, use, consumption, handling, or distribution” of smokeless tobacco under La. R.S. 47:841. As the majority notes, La. R.S. 47:854 requires the smoking tobacco tax be collected from the “dealer who first sells, uses, consumes, handles or distributes [smoking tobacco] in the State of Louisiana.” The failure to amend Section 854 to define the dealer who pays the smokeless tobacco tax may have been a mistake by the Legislature. However, this Court should not assume the Legislature intended to collect the smokeless tobacco tax from the same dealer described in Section 854 merely because it would be logical to collect both the smoking and smokeless tobacco taxes in the same manner. Because the smokeless tobacco tax is based on the invoice price, the Legislature could have intended to collect the tax from the tobacco dealer or from the manufacturer, jobber, or other person who invoiced the dealer. See La. R.S. 47:842(12) (defining “invoice price”). Thus, the Legislature must define the taxpayer before collecting the tax.

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

      . McLane also argues that "dealer” is defined in La. R.S. 47:842(4) as "every person who manufactures or purchases cigars, cigarettes or smoking tobacco for distribution, sale, use or consumption in the State of Louisiana,” and therefore a dealer of smokeless tobacco cannot be included in that definition. However, the prefatory phrase of La. R.S. 47:842 states that ”[a]s used in this Chapter, the following terms have the meaning ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: ...” The context of the Tobacco Tax Law, specifically La. R.S. 47:841, indicates that dealers of smokeless tobacco are included in the tax scheme.

      . La. R.S. 47:842(12) defines "invoice price” as "the manufacturers net invoiced price as invoiced to the Louisiana tobacco dealer, by the manufacturer, jobber, or other persons engaged in selling tobacco products in accordance with the tax levied by this chapter.”


author: GUIDRY, Justice.

text:
    Jimmy L. SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-C-1140.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 24, 2012.
    Rehearing Denied March 23, 2012.

      James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, Robert Chase Abendroth, Terri Russo Lacy, Emma J. DeVillier, Assistant Attorneys General, for Applicant.
    Charles Eugene Griffin, II, St. Francis-ville, for Respondent.
   GUIDRY, Justice.

| tThis case presents questions of statutory interpretation regarding amendments to Louisiana’s sex offender registration statutes, La.Rev.Stat. 15:540 et seq. We granted the State of Louisiana’s writ application to determine whether the court of appeal erred in finding that the amendments did not apply to the offender in this case, because application of those amended statutes would violate the prohibition set forth in the ex post facto clause of the state and federal constitutions. The offender in this case was convicted of two sex offenses prior to the enactment of the amendments to the sex offender registration statutes but before his initial registration period had expired. The amendments at issue here increased the duration an offender is obligated to register and created a new requirement for sex offender designation codes on drivers’ licenses and identification cards. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the ruling of the court of appeal, which found the 1999 amendment to former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(H), providing for a lifetime requirement to register for multiple offenders, did not apply to persons convicted of a sex offense prior to July 1997, and that the restriction code to be placed on an offender’s driver’s license or identification card requirements added by the legislature in 2006 also did not apply to the offender in this case.

LFACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The relevant facts in this case are not in dispute. In 1995, Jimmy L. Smith was convicted of two sex offenses in separate jurisdictions. These offenses occurred on the same evening, when the then nineteen-year-old had sex with the victim, a female under the age of 17, in the back of a truck while a friend drove them from East Baton Rouge Parish to East Feliciana Parish. On June 16, 1995, Mr. Smith entered a plea of nolo contendere in the 20th Judicial District Court, parish of East Feliciana, to indecent behavior with a juvenile, a violation of La.Rev.Stat. 14:81. In accordance with a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Mr. Smith to three years at hard labor. On July 25, 1995, Mr. Smith then entered a plea of guilty in the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, to carnal knowledge of a juvenile, a violation of La.Rev.Stat. 14:80. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Mr. Smith was sentenced to three years at hard labor to be served concurrently with the East Felicia-na Parish sentence. In addition, because both of Mr. Smith’s offenses are defined as a “sex offense” under Louisiana law, La. Rev.Stat. 15:542(E), Mr. Smith was subject to the sex offender registry provisions, La.Rev.Stat. 15:540, et seq., which at the time of his convictions required him to register for a period of ten years after being released from prison.

Mr. Smith was released from prison and placed on parole supervision on December 12, 1996, after serving approximately eighteen months of his sentence. Following his release from prison, Mr. Smith met with his parole officer, who reviewed with him the applicable sex offender registration and notification requirements under La.Rev.Stat. 15:540, et seq. During the interview, Mr. Smith informed his parole officer of his intention to move to Mississippi. On December |s24, 1996, following the direction of his parole officer, Mr. Smith registered as a sex offender with the Wilkerson County Sheriffs Office in Mississippi.

Mr. Smith claims he maintained his registration in Mississippi from 1996 until 2003, when he moved back to Louisiana. The Mississippi Department of Corrections notified the State of Louisiana on August 13, 1998, that it was “closing interest” on Mr. Smith “due to expiration,” presumably because Mr. Smith’s sentence and term of probation ended at that time. From the time Mr. Smith completed his parole in 1998, there is no record that he was registered as a sex offender in Mississippi.

Mr. Smith returned to Louisiana in 2003. Though he claims to have registered in Louisiana at that time, the first record of his registration in Louisiana is in January of 2005. Mr. Smith renewed his registration in 2006 but failed to do so in 2007 and 2008. The hearing transcript reveals that Mr. Smith believed his duty to register as a sex offender ended in December 2006, ten years from the date of his initial registration in Mississippi.

In 2009, the State of Louisiana contacted Mr. Smith to inform him of various amendments to the statutes governing the sex offender registration periods, which now require a multiple sex offender to register for life. Mr. Smith then registered as a sex offender in West Feliciana Parish in January 2009; however, one month later he filed a petition seeking to enjoin various state agencies from enforcing the sex offender registration law. Mr. Smith argued that by subjecting him to the ^amendments of the sex offender registration statutes after he had completed his ten-year registration period, the State of Louisiana was violating the ex post facto clauses of the constitutions of Louisiana and the United States. See La. Const. Art. I, § 28 and U.S. Const. Art. I, § 10. The district court denied Mr. Smith’s request for an injunction, and found that he was obligated under the current version of La.Rev.Stat. 15:544 to maintain his sex offender registration for the duration of his life.

The First Circuit reversed, finding Mr. Smith’s obligation to register, under the law in effect at the time of his conviction, had terminated in December 2006, ten years after his initial registration in Mississippi. Smith v. State, 09-1765, 09-1169 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/26/10), 2010 WL 1173071 (unpublished). The court of appeal found the 1999 amendment to former La.Rev. Stat. 15:542.1(H), creating the lifetime duty to register, did not apply to Mr. Smith because it excluded persons convicted of a sex offense before July 1, 1997. In addition, the court of appeal found the subsequent amendments in 2007 and 2008 to La.Rev.Stat. 15:544 also did not apply to Mr. Smith because their application would violate ex post facto principles.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

I. 1999 Amendment

The State contends Mr. Smith has a lifelong registration obligation under two enactments: 1999 La. Acts, No. 594, which amended La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(H) (now found in La.Rev.Stat. 15:544), and 2007 La. Acts, No. 460, which amended La.Rev.Stat. 15:544(B). These enactments impose a lifelong registration obligation on persons with a prior conviction for an offense requiring registration who are subsequently convicted of an offense that requires registration. The State contends the 1999 enactment applied to Mr. Smith because it became effective during the initial ten-year period during which Mr. Smith was obligated to register. For the reasons that follow, we agree the 1999 amendment to former |fiLa.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(H) applied to Mr. Smith to extend his obligation to register as a sex offender for the duration of his life.

As noted previously, the statutory provisions governing the sex offender registration requirements are found in La.Rev. Stat. 15:540 et seq. In 1995, at the time of Mr. Smith’s two convictions for sex offenses, La.Rev.Stat. 15:542 provided in part:

A. Any adult residing in this state who has pled guilty or has been convicted of any sex offense shall register with the sheriff of the parish of the person’s residence. ⅜ * *
E. “Sex Offense” for the purpose of this Chapter means a violation of any provision of Subpart C of Part II, Sub-part B of Part IV, or Subpart A(l) or A(4) of Part V, of Chapter 1 of Title 14 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, committed on or after June 18, 1992, or committed prior to June 18, 1992 if the person, as a result of the offense, is under the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections on or after June 18, 1992. A conviction for any offense provided in this definition includes a conviction for the offense under the laws of another state which is equivalent to an offense provided for in this chapter.

At the time of Mr. Smith’s convictions, the registration period for all sex offenders was ten years. La.Rev.Stat. 15:544(A) then provided in pertinent part:

A person required to register under R.S. 15:542 shall comply with the requirement for a period of ten years after the conviction, if not imprisoned during that period in a penal institution, full-time residential treatment facility, hospital, or other facility or institution pursuant to the conviction. If the person required to register is imprisoned or confined to a penal institution, full-time residential facility, hospital, or other facility or institution pursuant to the conviction, he shall comply with the registration provision for a period of ten years after release from his confinement or imprisonment. A convicted sex offender’s duty to register terminates at the expiration of ten years from the date of initial registration provided that during the ten-year period the convicted sex offender does not again become subject to this Chapter. (Emphasis added).

Therefore, Mr. Smith, as a person who was convicted of violations of La. Rev. Stats. 14:80 and 14:81 committed after the 1992 date provided for in La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(E), was obligated to register as a sex offender for ten years. This | (¡obligation, under the 1995 version of the statutes, would have terminated at the expiration of ten years from the date of initial registration, provided that Mr. Smith did not again commit an offense for which registration is required. In 1996, Mr. Smith was released from prison and registered as a sex offender in Mississippi. Therefore, Mr. Smith, at a minimum, remained under the obligation to register as a sex offender until 2006, and, thus, he was subject to that requirement when the governing provisions were amended in 1999.

After the 1999 amendment, former La. Rev.Stat. 15:542.1 provided in part:

A. Any person convicted of a sex offense as defined in R.S. 15:542(E) or of a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor as defined in R.S. 15:541(14) after July 1, 1997 shall have the duty to register and report under the provision of this Chapter. * * *
H. (3) The following persons shall be required to register for life:
(a) Any person with a prior conviction for an offense for which registration under this chapter is required.

The court of appeal found that this amended provision did not apply to Mr. Smith because it appeared in a section in which the duty to register was limited to convictions obtained after July 1, 1997, as provided for in former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(A), while Mr. Smith’s convictions occurred in 1995. The State contends the court below erred because the qualifying date “after July 1, 1997” in former La.Rev. Stat. 15:542.1(A) should be construed as modifying “of a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor as defined in La.Rev. Stat. 15:541(14)” and not as modifying “of a sex offense as defined in La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(E).” For the following reasons, we conclude “after July 1, 1997” modifies only the immediately preceding class of offenders in the former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(A), as urged by the State, and not to the entire Subsection, as found by the court of appeal below.

The starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself. Cat’s Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 98-0601, p. 15 (La.10/20/98), 720 So.2d 1186, 1198; Touchard v. Williams, 617 So.2d 885 (La.1993). Legislation is the solemn expression of legislative will, and therefore, the interpretation of a law involves primarily the search for the legislature’s intent. La. Civ.Code art. 2; Barbara Landry v. Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Co., 07-1907, p. 20 (La.05/21/08), 983 So.2d 66, 79; Detillier v. Kenner Regional Med. Ctr., 03-3259, p. 3 (La.7/6/04), 877 So.2d 100, 103. La. Civ.Code art. 9 provides that, when a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature. When the words of a law are ambiguous, their meaning must be sought by examining the context in which they occur and the text of the law as a whole, and laws on the same subject matter must be interpreted in reference to each other. La.Rev.Stat. 1:3; La. Civ.Code arts. 12 and 13; Conerly v. State, 97-0871, p. 4 (La.7/8/98), 714 So.2d 709, 711. Where two statutes deal with the same subject matter, they should be harmonized if possible. La. Civ.Code art. 13; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 96-0741, p. 2 (La.11/25/96), 699 So.2d 351, 358 (on rehearing).

The pertinent language of former La. Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(A) at issue here is:

Any person convicted of a sex offense as defined in R.S. 15:542(E) or of a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor as defined in R.S. 15:541(14) after July 1,1997 shall have the duty to register and report under the provision of this Chapter. (Emphasis added).

The statute references La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(E), which defines sex offense and supplies its own pertinent date:

“Sex Offense” for the purpose of this Chapter means a violation of any provision of Subpart C of Part II, Subpart B of Part IV, or Subpart A(l) or A(4) of Part V, of Chapter 1 of Title 14 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, committed on or after June 18, 1992, or committed prior to June 18, 1992 if the person, as a result of the offense, is under the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections on or after June 18, 1992.” (Emphasis added).

Given the plain language of these two statutes, we find that “after July 1, 1997” does not apply to the first part of the sentence in former La.Rev.Stat. |815:542.1(A), which subjected “[a]ny person convicted of a sex offense as defined in La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(E)” to the registration requirements. Not only is that clause separated by the disjunctive “or”, but also La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(E) contained its own provision defining sex offenses as those committed after June 18,1992. This rationale is supported by the fact that, unlike the definition of sex offense in La.Rev. Stat. 15:542(E), the definition of “criminal offense against a victim who is a minor” found in La.Rev.Stat. 15:541(14) did not provide a date. Consequently, the legislature provided for a beginning date applicable to registrants convicted of a “criminal offense against a victim who is a minor” in former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(A). Furthermore, were we to construe the qualifying language “after July 1, 1997” to apply to sex offenses under La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(E), it would render meaningless the June 18, 1992 date found in that very same section, thereby creating a window for sexual offenders not subject to registration. We must assume every word of the statute serves a purpose, because “it will not be presumed that the Legislature inserted idle, meaningless or superfluous language in the statute or that it intended for any part or provision of the statute to be meaningless, redundant or useless.” ABL Management, Inc. v. Board of Sup’rs of Southern Univ., 00-0798, p. 6 (La.11/28/00), 773 So.2d 131, 135 (citing Bunch v. Town of St. Francisville, 446 So.2d 1357, 1360 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984)).

The timing of the legislature in creating the two pertinent offenses, “criminal offense against a victim who is a minor” and “sex offense,” further demonstrates the legislature’s intent in enacting the statutes. The definition of “criminal offense against a victim who is a minor” set out in La.Rev. Stat. 15:541(14) was created as a category of offender obligated to register in July 1997 — the same date that La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1 was enacted. Prior to July 1997, there was no registration requirement for an offender convicted of a “criminal offense against a victim who |9is a minor;” therefore, this date correlates directly with the date provided in former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(A). On the other hand, the definition of “sex offense” found in La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(E) was added as a category of offender requiring registration on June 18, 1992. Logically, the July 1,1997 date does not apply to “sex offense” because it was created five years earlier. Acts 1997, No. 1147 enacted new offenses subject to registration requirements, but it also governed offenses previously subject to registration requirements. Therefore, the 1997 date was intended to ensure that registration would apply prospectively only to the offenses formerly not required to register.

We conclude the July 1, 1997 date in former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(A) is applicable only to persons convicted of a “criminal offense against a victim who is a minor.” Because Mr. Smith was twice convicted in 1995 of qualifying sexual offenses, the 1999 amendments to former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1 apply to his convictions.

II. Multiple Offenses

Having found Mr. Smith subject to the 1999 amendment, we must next determine whether Mr. Smith is a multiple offender obligated to register for life under former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(H)(3)(a), now La. Rev.Stat. 15:544(B)(2)(c). The State asserts Mr. Smith, who was convicted of a sex offense in June 1995 and again in July 1995, is a multiple offender as defined by that provision. Although Mr. Smith contends the facts giving rise to his convictions occurred on the same date and arose from the same transaction, we find there were two distinct convictions that occurred in different parishes, on different dates, for different crimes.

In State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), 969 So.2d 1233, this court examined classification of a multiple offender as it relates to enhancing a sentence under the habitual offender statute. There, we found “no statutory bar to applying |10the habitual offender law in sentencing for more than one conviction obtained on the same date, whether the convictions result from separate felonies committed at separate times or arise out of a single criminal act or episode.” Shaw, p. 20, 969 So.2d at 1245.

Absent any legislative indication to the contrary, we conclude similar reasoning applies in classifying a multiple offender as such under the sex offender registration provisions. The lifetime registration requirement for multiple sex offenders is obviously directed to those offenders demonstrating a proclivity toward sexual offenses. However, we discern no sequen-tiality requirement in the language of the registration statute. Cf. State v. Johnson, 03-2993 (La.10/19/04), 884 So.2d 568 (discussing the habitual offender law set forth in La.Rev.Stat. 15:529.1, which requires the subsequent felony to have been committed after the prior conviction). Former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(H)(3)(a) simply provided that “[a]ny person with a prior conviction for an offense for which registration under this chapter is required” must register for life. La.Rev.Stat. 15:544(B)(2)(c), the current version, requires lifetime registration for a person “with a prior conviction or adjudication for an offense for which registration is required ... who subsequently is convicted of or adjudicated for an offense which requires registration.... ” Thus, under either former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(H)(3)(a) or current La.Rev.Stat. 15:544(B)(2)(c), a person convicted of a qualifying sex offense who at the time of the subsequent conviction has a prior conviction for a qualifying sex offense shall be subject to lifetime registration without regard to whether the convictions result from a single criminal act or episode.

In the instant case, Mr. Smith was first convicted of a qualifying sex offense for indecent behavior with a juvenile in June 1995 in East Feliciana Parish. Thereafter, Mr. Smith was convicted of a second qualifying sex offense, carnal knowledge of a juvenile, in East Baton Rouge, making him a multiple sexual | n offender subject to lifetime registration under either former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1 or the current version in La.Rev.Stat. 15:544. Therefore, in 1999, when the legislature increased the period of registration to life for offenders with multiple convictions of a sex offense, Mr. Smith became subject to lifetime registration because he had a prior conviction in East Feliciana Parish for indecent behavior with a juvenile at the time of his subsequent conviction in East Baton Rouge Parish for carnal knowledge of a juvenile.

III. Contradictory Hearing

We next find the court of appeal erred in holding that Mr. Smith could not be required to register for life absent a contradictory hearing. As noted above, under present law the provisions requiring registration for the lifetime of the offender are La.Rev.Stat. 15:544(B)(2)(c) and (E). Based on the plain language [ 12of La.Rev. Stat. 15:544, we find Mr. Smith, as a person twice convicted of a qualifying sex offense, did not have the right to a contradictory hearing before the court could impose upon him a lifetime registration obligation.

After reviewing the relevant provisions of the sex offender law, we conclude the court of appeal was correct in finding that, before an offender’s obligation can be extended for life, Subsection (E) of La.Rev. Stat. 15:544 requires a contradictory hearing and proof that the offender poses a substantial risk of committing another offense requiring registration. However, that is not the case before us. Mr. Smith was not entitled to a contradictory hearing because his obligation to register for life did not arise under La.Rev.Stat. 15:544(E). Instead, he was subject to lifetime registration as provided by former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(H)(3)(a), now found in La.Rev. Stat. 15:544(B)(2)(c). Under La.Rev.Stat. 15:544(E), an offender can be required by the court to register for life, despite the fact that he was initially required only to register for fifteen or twenty-five years as provided in La.Rev.Stat. 15:544(A) and (B)(1). But that time period can only be extended if, after a contradictory hearing, the State proves the offender Imposes a substantial risk of committing another offense requiring registration. As a multiple sex offender, Mr. Smith was obliged under former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(H)(3)(a), now La.Rev.Stat. 15:544(B)(2)(c), to register for the duration of his life. His registration obligation was not modified by the court under La.Rev.Stat. 15:544(E); instead, he became a lifetime registrant as a result of the 1999 amendment adding former La. Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(H)(3)(a). Accordingly, no contradictory hearing pursuant to La. Rev.Stat. 15:544(E) was required.

IV. Credit for Time Registered Outside of Louisiana

The State contends Mr. Smith’s initial registration in Mississippi and the time during which he was registered in that jurisdiction are irrelevant for purposes of Louisianas sex offender registration requirements. Instead, the State argues the ten-year period began to run only from the date Mr. Smith first registered in Louisiana, i.e. in January 2005. Thus, the State argues that 2007 La. Acts, No. 460, which amended La.Rev.Stat. 15:544(B), became effective during the initial ten-year period during which Mr. Smith was obligated to register, even though the effective date of the amendment came more than ten years after Mr. Smith’s release and initial registration in Mississippi.

Nevertheless, having found that Mr. Smith automatically became a lifetime registrant in 1999 when former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1 was amended, we need not address whether Mr. Smith should receive credit for the time he was registered in Mississippi. Even assuming Mr. Smith’s ten-year registration period began in 1996 when he initially registered in Mississippi, we find he is obligated to register for the duration of his life as a multiple offender pursuant to former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(H)(3)(a), now La.Rev.Stat. 15:544(B)(2)(c).

\UV. The Driver’s License and Identification Card Statutes

In addition to the registration and notification obligations imposed on sex offenders set forth in La.Rev.Stat. 15:440 et seq., Acts 2006, No. 663 § 2 added La.Rev.Stat. 32:412(1) and La.Rev.Stat. 40:1321(J), which require a restriction code be placed on a driver’s license and an identification card that declares the holder is a sex offender. Because we have found Mr. Smith has a duty to register for life by operation of former La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1 as amended in 1999, these provisions, added during the time period for which Mr. Smith is required to register, are applicable to him in the same manner we found the 1999 amendment applicable. Accordingly, the court of appeal erred in finding Mr. Smith is not required to carry an identification card or driver’s license that reflects his status as a sex offender.

| KVI. Ex Post Facto Clause

Lastly, we turn to the primary basis for the court of appeal’s ruling: its finding that application of the 2007 and 2008 amendments to Mr. Smith constitutes a violation of the ex post facto clause. We instead find that the period of time a sex offender is obligated to register may be extended during the time of his original registration period without violating the ex post facto clause. The court below held the application to Mr. Smith of La.Rev. Stat. 15:544, as amended by 2007 La. Acts, No. 460, and 2008 La. Acts, Nos. 462 and 816, violates the principles of ex post facto because the lifetime obligation to register for a multiple offender under current law went into effect after Mr. Smith’s obligation to maintain his registration for ten years had expired. That rationale, however, is incorrect, as we have explained above. The provision requiring a lifetime duty to register was added to former La. Rev.Stat. 15:542.1 in 1999, well within Mr. Smith’s original ten-year registration period. Therefore, his registration obligation could be lengthened in 1999 without implicating the ex post facto clause.

Art. I, § 10 of the United States Constitution and La. Const, art. I, § 28 prohibit ex post facto application of the criminal law by the state. The focus of the ex post facto inquiry is whether a new law redefines criminal conduct or increases the penalty by which the crime is punishable. State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790. Here, Mr. Smith had not yet satisfied his original ten-year obligation to register as a sex offender at the time of the 1999 amendment. Therefore, we find the legislative action in extending that requirement did not increase his punishment; instead, it merely extended the civil scheme for registration.

It is well-settled that Louisiana’s sex offender registration requirements are not punitive, but rather, they are remedial and may be applied retroactively without violating the prohibition of the ex post facto clause. In State ex rel. Olivieri, 00-|0172 (La.2/21/01), 779 So.2d 735, this court considered an ex post facto challenge to the sex offender registration provisions. We resolved the issue by holding the registration and notification requirements imposed upon sex offenders to be a legitimate, non-punitive regulatory scheme that did not impose punishment. Id. pp. 19-20, 779 So.2d at 747. Because such provisions were found to be remedial in nature, we concluded that application of the sex offender registration and notification laws to persons convicted before their enactment does not violate ex post facto principles. Id. Similarly, in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2002), the United States Supreme Court determined that Alaska’s lifetime registration and notification requirements for sex offenders were non-punitive and, thus, did not violate the ex post facto clause.

Most recently, in State v. Golston, 10-2804 (La.7/1/11), 67 So.3d 452, this court upheld the provisions of La.Rev.Stat. 15:560-560.6, governing Sex Offender Assessment Panels (SOAP), against a variety of constitutional challenges. The SOAP provisions entail not only lifetime registration, but also lifetime probation involving electronic monitoring, repeated psychiatric evaluations, and home computer searches. Id. In Golston this court explained that, because the statutory scheme did not set out criminal provisions but instead constituted a regulatory scheme, much like the registration requirements upheld in Olivi-eri, it was not susceptible to a void-for-vagueness challenge. Id., p. 16, 67 So.3d at 463.

After reviewing the foregoing jurisprudence, we find the increase in the number of years Mr. Smith is required to spend as a registered sex offender is not punishment. Accordingly, applying to Mr. Smith the 1999 amendment to former La. Rev.Stat. 15:542.1 does not violate the ex post facto clause.

Similarly, the amendments and provisions added in 2007 and 2008, as well as the 2006 legislation regarding the placement of a restriction code on the 117offender’s driver’s license and identification card, are applicable to Mr. Smith without violating the ex post facto clause. As we explained in Olivieri, p. 20, 779 So.2d at 747, the legislative intent behind the registration statutes is to alert the public for the purpose of public safety, a remedial intent, and not to punish convicted sex offenders. We further explained that, while some of the provisions of the registration statutes may be remotely similar to historical forms of punishment, such as public humiliation, the immediate need for public protection was a corollary of, rather than an addendum to, the punishment of sex offenders. Id. pp. 21-22, 779 So.2d at 748. We further recognized that, although the registration statutes imposed the burden of the public and community notification process on convicted sex offenders, which caused them to have to expend money they were not obligated to pay at the time they committed their offenses, the onus placed on them by the legislation did not constitute a separate punishment for their offense, but rather, it imposed a condition of their release on parole or probation. Id. p. 24, 779 So.2d at 749. Therefore, we found that any costs associated with the conditions of their release were a necessary part of the regulatory scheme. Id. pp. 22-24, 779 So.2d at 748-49.

As we did in Olivieri, we find that the sex offender statutes, as amended in 1999, 2006, 2007, and 2008, to the extent they are applicable to Mr. Smith, are not so obtrusive as to deem them punitive rather than remedial or regulatory. While the extension for life of the time period for registration, as well as the added requirement of notations on Mr. Smith’s driver’s license or identification card, may be harsh, may impact a sex offender’s life in a long-lived and intense manner, and also be quite burdensome to the sex offender, we do not find them to constitute an infringement of the principles of ex post facto. See Olivieri, pp. 24-25, 779 So.2d at 749-50.

^CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we find the 1999 amendment to former La.Rev. Stat. 15:542.1, providing for a lifetime obligation to register as a sex offender, applies to Mr. Smith as a multiple sexual offender. We further find no violation of the ex post facto clause in the application of the sex offender registration statutes to Mr. Smith. Thus, we reverse the ruling of the court of appeal, and reinstate the district court’s judgment denying Mr. Smith’s petition for injunctive and declaratory relief and ordering him to register as a lifetime sex offender.

REVERSED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGEMENT REINSTATED.

      . Chapter 3-B of Title 15, comprising La.Rev. Stat. 15:540 through 549, and providing for registration of sex offenders, see S.B. No. 1111, was added by Acts 1992, No. 388, § 1, eff. June 18, 1992. This enactment created the basic statutory framework for sex offender registration in Louisiana. The original framework included an obligation imposed by La. Rev.Stat. 15:542(A) for persons convicted of any sex offense as defined in La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(E) to register for ten years after release from imprisonment in accordance with La.Rev.Stat. 15:544.

      . In 1999, La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1(H) was amended by Acts 1999, No. 594, § 1, to add (H)(3), which created a lifetime duty to register for "any person with a prior conviction for an offense for which registration under this Chapter is required.” Substantial portions of La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1 were repealed by Acts 2007, No. 460, § 1, including (H), as the framework was restructured and the lifetime duty to register was moved from La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1 to La.Rev.Stat. 15:544. Under the same enactment, La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.1 became a notification statute that no longer addressed registration requirements.

      . Mr. Smith brought suit against the West Feliciana Parish Sheriff, the West Feliciana Parish District Attorney, the Attorney General of Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, the Louisiana State Police and the Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles.

      . It is undisputed that Mr. Smith’s convictions were for sex offenses under La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(E) as both La.Rev.Stat. 14:80 and La. Rev.Stat. 14:81 are included in Subpart A(l) of Part V, of Chapter 1 of Title 14 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950.

      . The obligation to register as a sex offender for life can be found in La.Rev.Stat. 15:544, which provides in pertinent part:
      A. Except as provided for in Subsection B of this Section, a person required to register and provide notification pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter shall comply with the requirement for a period of fifteen years from the date of the initial registration in Louisiana, or the duration of the lifetime of the offender as provided in Subsection E of this Section, unless the underlying conviction is reversed, set aside, or vacated. The requirement to register shall apply to an offender who is pardoned.
      B. (1) A person required to register pursuant to this Chapter who was convicted of a sexual offense against a victim who is a minor as defined in R.S. 15:541 shall register and maintain his registration and provide community notification pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter for a period of twenty-five years from the date of initial registration in Louisiana, or the duration of the lifetime of the offender as provided in Subsection E of this Section, unless the underlying conviction is reversed, set aside, or vacated. The requirement to register shall apply to an offender who is pardoned. (2) Any of the following persons required to register pursuant to this Chapter shall register and provide notification for the duration of their lifetime, even if granted a first offender pardon, unless the underlying conviction is reversed, set aside, or vacated: (c) A person with a prior conviction or adjudication for an offense for which registration is required by the provisions of this Chapter, whether or not the prior offense required registration at the time of commission or conviction, who subsequently is convicted of or adjudicated for an offense which requires registration under the provisions of this Chapter.
      E. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection A or Paragraph (B)(1) of this Section, the court, upon motion of the district attorney, and after a contradictory hearing, shall have the authority to order a person required to register and provide notification pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter to register and notify for the duration of the lifetime of the offender upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the offender poses a substantial risk of committing another offense requiring registration pursuant to this Chapter. The district attorney and the offender may enter into a plea agreement requiring the offender to register and provide notification for the duration of the lifetime of the offender without a contradictory hearing.
      (2) Whenever the registration and notification period of a sex offender has been increased to lifetime pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph (1) of this Subsection, upon maintenance of a clean record for the minimum time period applicable to the offense of conviction as provided by the provisions of Subsection A or Paragraph (B)(1) of this Section, the offender may petition the court in the jurisdiction of conviction, or if convicted under the laws of another state, or military, territorial, foreign, tribal, or federal law, in the jurisdiction of the offender’s residence, to be relieved of the registration and notification requirements of this Chapter. The district attorney shall be served with the petition, and the matter shall be set for contradictory hearing. Upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the offender has maintained a "clean record” as defined in this Section and that the offender does not pose a substantial risk of committing another offense requiring registration pursuant to this Chapter, the court may order that the offender be relieved of the obligation to register and notify pursuant to this Chapter.

      . In Acts 2010, No. 400, § 1, La.Rev.Stat. 15:544 was amended in a manner consistent with the State's approach to calculating time. The amendment clarified that in Subsection (A) the general registration requirement must be complied with "for a period of fifteen years from the date of the initial registration in Louisiana" and in Subsection (B) that the heightened registration requirement for persons convicted of a sexual offense against a minor extends "for a period of twenty-five years from the date of initial registration in Louisiana(Emphasis added). The amendment further added Subsection (C)(2), which provides:
      An offender required to register pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter shall only receive credit for the period of time in which he resides in this state and is in compliance with all registration and notification requirements of this state.

      . La.Rev.Stat. 32:412(1) sets forth the parameters of the driver's license requirement and provides in part:

        I. (1) The Louisiana driver's license, regardless of its class, issued to any person who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to R.S. 15:542 and R.S. 15:542.1 shall contain a restriction code which declares that the license holder is a sex offender ... the driver’s license shall include the words "sex offender” which shall be orange in color.
      (5) The provisions of this Subsection shall apply to all registered sex offenders regardless of the date of conviction.

      . La. R.S. 40:1321(J) describes the specificities of the identification cards and provides in part:
      J. (1) Any person required to register as a sex offender with the Louisiana Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information, as required by R.S. 15:542 et seq., shall obtain a special identification card issued by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections which shall contain a restriction code declaring that the holder is a sex offender. This special identification card shall include the words "sex offender” in all capital letters which are orange in color ... * * * (3) The provisions of this Subsection shall apply to all sex offenders required to register pursuant to R.S. 15:542 et seq., regardless of the date of conviction.