State of Tennessee v. Milvern Hoss, Jr., M2016-01927-CCA-R3-CD

Hoss, a Kansas aggravated sexual battery convict (sentence expired 2003), moved to Tennessee in 2004 and registered as a violent sexual offender in Tennessee in 2014 after a 2010 jail booking prompted initial registration paperwork.
He repeatedly signed TBI registration/acknowledgment forms (at least six occasions) that listed reporting duties and included a presumption that a signature shows knowledge of registry requirements.
As a homeless registrant, Hoss was required to report monthly; he complied for several months (Mar–Aug 2014) but stopped reporting after August 15, 2014.
Authorities discovered he misreported his address (resided within 1,000 feet of a school/park). Hoss previously pled no contest in Feb 2015 to perjury and registry violations and received a suspended sentence with reporting conditions; he later failed to report to his supervising officer.
At the bench trial on a Class E felony charge for knowingly violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-208 by failing to report, Hoss argued the Act was unconstitutional as applied (ex post facto) and claimed he signed forms under duress/while intoxicated and thus lacked knowledge.
The trial court convicted Hoss and sentenced him to four years; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hoss)	Held
Ex post facto challenge to retroactive application of the Act	Act is a nonpunitive regulatory scheme applied retroactively and constitutional	Application of the Act to Hoss increases punishment because his Kansas conviction did not carry registration; retroactive application violates ex post facto clauses	Rejected — Act is nonpunitive; retroactive registration/reporting as applied to Hoss does not violate ex post facto protections
Waiver of constitutional challenge	State argued Hoss waived by not raising pretrial/new-trial	Hoss raised the challenge at trial (and in closing); not raised pretrial	Court declined to enforce waiver; addressed merits and found waiver argument forfeited by State for failing to timely object
Sufficiency of evidence / knowledge element (duress/intoxication claim)	Signature and repeated written acknowledgments create statutory presumption of knowledge; testimony and records support willful failure to report	Hoss said he signed under duress and while intoxicated and believed the law did not apply to him	Rejected — Viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational factfinder could find Hoss knowingly violated reporting requirements; duress/intoxication claim insufficient to overcome statutory presumption

Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d 461 (Tenn. 2010) (held Tennessee registry requirements are retroactive and nonpunitive)
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (registration statutes are civil, nonpunitive for ex post facto analysis)
Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (ex post facto inquiry focuses on whether law increases punishment)
Miller v. State, 584 S.W.2d 758 (Tenn. 1979) (Tennessee formulation of ex post facto categories)
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) (tests for determining whether a regulatory scheme is punitive)
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) (classic statement on ex post facto prohibition)