State v. Divine, 246 P.3d 692

In 2003 Divine pled guilty to lewd and lascivious behavior; district court imposed probation and a 10-year sex-offender registration requirement under KORA, made a condition of probation.
Divine completed probation in 2005 but continued to register as a sex offender thereafter.
Approximately three years after probation, Divine filed a petition for expungement of the conviction; expungement order filed November 26, 2008 via journal entry approved by prosecutor and defense counsel.
Divine moved to lift the registration requirement, arguing expungement terminated the conviction and thus the offense no longer triggered KORA registration; the State contended the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief and the registration continued until 2013.
The district court determined the expungement did not terminate the registration obligation under existing statute, and Divine was required to register until July 8, 2013; Divine appealed and the case moved to the Supreme Court of Kansas.
The pivotal question was whether expungement terminates the KORA registration obligation or whether registration can continue notwithstanding expungement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does expungement terminate KORA registration as a matter of law?	Divine: expungement treats him as not having been convicted; thus no offender under KORA.	State: expungement has no provision allowing removal of registration duties under KORA.	Expungement terminates registration as a matter of law; no express exception to disclose expunged conviction in KORA.
Can expungement be used to compel continued disclosure of the expunged conviction through the sex-offender registry?	Divine contends no requirement to disclose beyond expungement's general effect.	State sought continued disclosure via registry but did not obtain an express exception.	No explicit exception in expungement statute; registry disclosure not required by expungement order.
Did the district court have authority to lift the registration requirement after expungement?	Divine could obtain relief without contravening expungement.	State argued lack of authority to reduce 10-year registration once triggered.	Relief flowed from expungement law, not a court order; district court should terminate registration as a matter of law.

State v. Riedel, 242 Kan. 834 (1988) (expunged conviction can be disclosed in narrow, specific circumstances)
State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 (2009) (appellate court will not read into plain statute something not found in it)
State v. Anderson, 40 Kan. App. 2d 69 (2008) (ignorance of the law is no excuse)