State v. Shaylor
108103
| Kan. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- Phoebe Shaylor was convicted in 2002 of manufacturing methamphetamine; at that time KORA did not require drug-offender registration.
- In 2007 Kansas amended KORA to include drug manufacturers unless the court found on the record the manufacture was for personal use.
- Shaylor failed to register in 2010 after notice; she was charged and convicted for failure to register and sentenced to probation with an underlying prison term.
- She moved to dismiss below, arguing the retroactive registration requirement violated the Ex Post Facto Clause; on appeal she also argued Apprendi violations (no jury finding as to personal-use exception and use of criminal history).
- The Court of Appeals rejected her claims; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review of ex post facto and Apprendi issues and affirmed, relying on prior holdings that KORA is civil/nonpunitive as applied to offenders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shaylor) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive application of KORA registration (Ex Post Facto) | Retroactive addition of registration duties to her 2002 conviction increases punishment in violation of Ex Post Facto Clause | KORA is a civil, nonpunitive regulatory scheme; retroactive application does not increase punishment | Affirmed: Shaylor failed to show KORA is punitive; no Ex Post Facto violation |
| Personal-use exception and Apprendi | The factual finding whether manufacture was for personal use must be submitted to a jury under Apprendi | The triggering factual finding is part of a civil regulatory scheme, not a sentence enhancement under Apprendi | Affirmed: No jury finding required because KORA's requirements are not a sentencing enhancement |
| Use of criminal history in sentencing (Apprendi) | Criminal history used to calculate sentence must be submitted to a jury | Criminal history is a traditional sentencing factor; Apprendi does not require jury finding | Rejected (court declined to reconsider; consistent with prior rulings) |
| Burden to overcome legislative intent | KORA labeled civil; only "clearest proof" that effects are punitive can override intent | State: legislative intent controls; petitioner did not meet the high proof standard | Shaylor did not meet the required clear proof showing KORA is punitive |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (civil registration regimes are generally nonpunitive for Ex Post Facto purposes)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)
- State v. Petersen-Beard, 304 Kan. 192 (Kansas held lifetime registration for sex offenders is nonpunitive)
- State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669 (discussing registration as nonpunitive regulatory scheme)
- State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (criminal history as sentencing factor not subject to Apprendi challenge)