399 P.3d 865
Kan.2017Background
- In 1995 Marcus D. Reed was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and required to register under KORA for ten years.
- During that ten-year period Reed was noncompliant with registration requirements for ~4 years and 2 months.
- In 2005 the Kansas Legislature amended K.S.A. 22-4906(a) to toll the registration period for times of incarceration and for periods when a registrant knowingly or willfully failed to comply.
- Reed was later charged and pled guilty (2009) to offender-registration violations that occurred in May–June 2008.
- Reed moved (2012) to withdraw his plea, arguing he was not required to register in 2008 because his original 10-year term had expired; he later raised, on appeal, an Ex Post Facto challenge to retroactive application of the 2005 tolling amendment.
- The district court denied the motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed (alternative merits ruling); the Kansas Supreme Court granted review and affirmed, holding KORA registration is nonpunitive for Ex Post Facto purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Reed's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retroactive application of KORA tolling provision violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | Tolling applied retroactively increased Reed's registration period after conviction, so it is punitive and violates Ex Post Facto | KORA registration is civil/nonpunitive; tolling is a regulatory provision and may be applied retroactively | Court held KORA registration is not punishment under the Ex Post Facto Clause; retroactive tolling does not violate Ex Post Facto |
| Whether retroactive tolling would alter jurisdiction/validate 2008 registration convictions | Reed: Without tolling, registration period had expired and Sedgwick court lacked jurisdiction over 2008 violations | State: Tolling extended the registration period to cover 2008, so convictions were within statutory duty to register | Court agreed tolling, when applied, extended the period to include 2008 violations; convictions stand |
| Whether Reed’s late motion to withdraw plea demonstrated manifest injustice | Reed: Retroactive application of tolling deprived him of a viable defense and constitutes manifest injustice | State: No manifest injustice; district court’s factual finding that tolling extended period was correct | Court found no manifest injustice and no abuse of discretion by district court |
| Whether appellate court should consider an unpreserved constitutional claim | Reed: Invokes exception for questions of law on admitted facts and asks merits review | State: Preservation rules apply; Court of Appeals alternatively addressed merits | Kansas Supreme Court exercised prudential review and decided the claim on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Petersen-Beard, 304 Kan. 192, 377 P.3d 1127 (2016) (held KORA lifetime registration is nonpunitive; applied intent-effects test)
- Doe v. Thompson, 304 Kan. 291, 373 P.3d 750 (2016) (discussion of KORA’s character; majority/dissent reasoning on punitive effect)
- State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669, 923 P.2d 1024 (1997) (earlier case recognizing KORA as a civil regulatory scheme)