State v. Tappendick, 400 P.3d 180

Rayburn Tappendick pleaded no contest in 2011 to two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child for 2008 offenses.
At the time of his plea KORA required lifetime registration; in 2008 the registration period for these offenses would have been 10 years.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Tappendick raised for the first time an Ex Post Facto challenge to the lifetime-registration requirement.
The State and the Court of Appeals declined to consider the claim as not preserved, applying the general rule that new legal theories may not be asserted for the first time on appeal and citing three narrow exceptions.
Tappendick petitioned for review to the Kansas Supreme Court, but his petition failed to meaningfully challenge the Court of Appeals’ reasoning or supply supporting authority.
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ refusal to address the unpreserved Ex Post Facto claim, finding the petition for review inadequate to rebut the panel’s rationale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an Ex Post Facto challenge to KORA’s lifetime registration could be raised for the first time on appeal	Tappendick: lifetime registration as applied to 2008 offenses violates the Ex Post Facto Clause because 2008 law required only 10 years	State: claim not preserved below; general rule bars new legal theories on appeal absent narrow exceptions	Court: claim not considered because Tappendick failed to preserve it and did not satisfy or meaningfully challenge the exceptions; petition for review inadequate

State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84 (discusses preservation of new constitutional claims on appeal)
In re Estate of Broderick, 286 Kan. 1071 (lists exceptions allowing new theories on appeal)
State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669 (addresses Ex Post Facto implications of sex-offender registration disclosure)
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (U.S. Supreme Court decision on sex-offender registration and Ex Post Facto analysis)
Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 296 Kan. 636 (failure to support arguments with authority is akin to failing to brief the issue)
State v. Allen, 293 Kan. 793 (party must challenge Court of Appeals’ dispositive procedural holdings on petition for review)