State v. Divine, 246 P.3d 692

Divine pled guilty in 2003 to lewd and lascivious behavior and was convicted and placed on probation with a 10-year sex offender registration obligation under KORA.
The registration requirement continued as a condition of probation, and Divine completed probation in 2005 but remained registered.
Approximately three years later Divine filed a petition for expungement of the underlying conviction; the expungement order was entered November 26, 2008 via journal entry approved by prosecutors and defense counsel.
Divine later moved to lift the registration requirement, contending the expungement erased the conviction that triggered KORA registration.
The State argued the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief because the registration obligation is statutory, not a probation condition, and the expungement did not automatically end registration under KORA.
The district court granted relief only to the extent of requiring continued registration until July 8, 2013, prompting Divine to appeal.

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, so no KORA offender status remains.	State: district court cannot end registration; KORA remains in effect and expungement does not automatically end it.	Yes; expungement terminates the KORA registration requirement as a matter of law.
Does expungement provide an exception to disclose through KORA if not explicitly listed?	Divine argues no explicit exception exists for disclosure via registration after expungement.	State argues expungement exceptions are limited and no such exception exists here.	Expungement does not require ongoing disclosure through KORA; no exception found.
Was the district court's relief under 22-4908 proper given expungement?	Divine seeks termination of registration; expungement suffices to end it.	State contends the court had no authority to modify registration under 22-4908 once triggered.	Relief depended on expungement's effect; the court should terminate registration as a matter of law.
Can an expungement proceeding be used collaterally to challenge KORA registration?	Expungement should affect registration status without additional procedural hurdles.	State cannot rely on expungement-order defects to resist termination of registration.	State's procedural challenges to expungement were not controlling; expungement terminated registration.

State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 (2009) (read plain statute; appellate will not infer exceptions not readily found)
State v. Riedel, 242 Kan. 834 (1988) (expunged conviction may be disclosed only for specific exceptions)
State v. Anderson, 40 Kan. App. 2d 69 (2008) (ignorance of the law does not excuse an error)
State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41 (2010) (statutory interpretation is question of law; unlimited review)
Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185 (2009) (core appellate review of statutory interpretation)