State v. Pewenofkit, 307 Kan. 730

In 2012 William Pewenofkit pleaded no contest to kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary for offenses committed in March 2011.
At the time of the crimes KORA required 10 years of offender registration; between the offenses and Pewenofkit’s plea the statute was amended to require lifetime registration.
Pewenofkit raised, for the first time on appeal, that applying lifetime registration to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
A Court of Appeals panel sua sponte dismissed the appeal because Pewenofkit had not shown his new arguments fit an exception to the rule that issues not raised in the district court cannot be raised on appeal, and the appellate record lacked necessary factual development to evaluate the ex post facto claim.
Pewenofkit petitioned for review to the Kansas Supreme Court but did not meaningfully challenge the Court of Appeals’ procedural basis for dismissal in his petition or supplemental briefing.
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal, holding Pewenofkit failed to challenge the panel’s dispositive procedural rulings and failed to brief the alleged error adequately.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lifetime KORA registration applied after the offense violates the Ex Post Facto Clause	Pewenofkit: lifetime registration is punitive and unconstitutional as applied	State: issue was not preserved below and lacking record development; cannot be raised first on appeal	Not reached on merits — dismissal affirmed for procedural failure to preserve and develop the claim
Whether an appellee must show why an issue not raised below should be considered on appeal	Pewenofkit: argued reviewability was addressed in his brief	State: Court of Appeals required an explanation per rule and precedent	Court: Party must challenge Court of Appeals’ procedural rulings on petition for review; Pewenofkit failed to do so
Whether failure to support arguments with pertinent authority forfeits review	Pewenofkit: did not provide authority in supplemental briefing	State: lack of authority constitutes inadequate briefing	Court: Arguments unsupported by authority are deemed waived/abandoned
Whether the appellate record supplied necessary factual basis to assess punitive effect of registration	Pewenofkit: asserted claim but provided no factual support in record	State: record lacked factual development needed to analyze ex post facto claim	Court: Record was insufficient; factual and legal issues cannot be raised first on appeal

State v. Breeden, 297 Kan. 567 (2013) (issue-preservation rule and exceptions on appellate review)
Friedman v. Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, 296 Kan. 636 (2013) (failure to support an argument with authority is like failing to brief it)
State v. Allen, 293 Kan. 793 (2012) (must challenge Court of Appeals’ dispositive procedural holdings on petition for review)