State v. Daniel, 410 P.3d 877

In April 2011 Jermaine Daniel committed attempted kidnapping and domestic battery; he pled no contest and was sentenced in December 2011.
Between the offenses and sentencing, KORA was amended (effective July 1, 2011) to impose lifetime violent-offender registration for certain offenses; the State argued the amendment applied to Daniel.
At sentencing Daniel's counsel conceded that registration was required and, relying on precedent, agreed the 2011 amendment could be applied retroactively and result in lifetime registration.
The district court ordered lifetime registration; Daniel appealed after obtaining new counsel and reversed position, arguing retroactive lifetime registration violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and alternatively that public notification should be limited to 10 years.
The Court of Appeals declined to reach the merits, holding Daniel invited the error on the Ex Post Facto claim and failed to preserve the public-notification/10-year claim; this Court granted review and affirmed on preservation grounds.

Issue	Daniel's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Whether Daniel can challenge retroactive lifetime KORA registration under the Ex Post Facto Clause despite defense counsel's concession at sentencing.	Retroactive lifetime registration violates the Ex Post Facto Clause; 10-year rule should apply.	The sentencing concession waived/chose not to contest retroactivity; no preserved claim.	Court: claim not preserved/invited error; appeal barred.
2. Whether public-notification portion of KORA violates the Ex Post Facto Clause requiring only 10 years of public registration.	Under Myers, public notification is punitive; only 10 years of public registration should apply.	Claim not preserved below; appellate review not permitted.	Court: unpreserved; not reviewed.
3. Whether exceptions to the rule against raising constitutional issues for the first time on appeal apply.	Exceptions should allow review of constitutional challenge despite lack of preservation.	No exceptions were invoked or explained; Rule 6.02(a)(5) applies.	Court: Daniel failed to assert an exception; failure is fatal.
4. Whether invited error doctrine prevents appellate review when defense counsel conceded legal point at sentencing.	Concession should not bind appellant if concession was incorrect application of law.	A party cannot raise an unpreserved constitutional claim on appeal absent an asserted exception.	Court: invited error/preservation rules strictly enforced; claim rejected.

State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041 (warning that constitutional claims ordinarily must be preserved and exceptions must be asserted)
State v. Williams, 298 Kan. 1075 (enforcing preservation requirements under Rule 6.02(a)(5))
State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669 (addressing punitive effect of public notification under offender registration)
State v. Hankins, 304 Kan. 226 (standard of review for invited error questions)
State v. Jones, 298 Kan. 324 (plenary review of preservation issues)
State v. Beltz, 305 Kan. 773 (noting exceptions to preservation rule must be asserted)
Bogguess v. State, 306 Kan. 574 (affirming on a single preservation ground)