Travis David Knox v. State
162 Idaho 729
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Travis David Knox was convicted in Oregon (2002) of third-degree rape and second-degree sexual abuse involving a 15-year-old victim and moved to Idaho in 2003, where he registered as a sex offender.
- In 2015 the Idaho Central Sex Offender Registry (Registry) issued a final order finding Knox’s Oregon convictions substantially equivalent to Idaho’s lewd conduct with a minor statute (I.C. § 18-1508) and thus an "aggravated offense," triggering lifetime registration.
- Knox filed for judicial review in district court; the district court affirmed the Registry’s final order. Knox appealed.
- Knox argued (1) the Registry’s 2015 equivalency determination (and the 2009 statutory change classifying § 18-1508 as aggravated regardless of victim age) violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and (2) he was entitled to additional due process before the Registry’s determination.
- The Registry asserted the appeal was untimely but failed to serve Knox’s counsel, so the statutory 28-day filing period did not run; the appellate court therefore had jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Knox) | Defendant's Argument (Registry/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction — timeliness of petition for judicial review | Knox timely filed; service to him (not counsel) was sufficient so appeal should proceed | Registry argued filing was untimely (filed after 28 days), so court lacked jurisdiction | Service was not made on counsel; statutory 28-day period did not run; court had jurisdiction to hear appeal |
| Ex post facto challenge to retroactive application / 2009 statute change | Retroactive reclassification (2009) of § 18-1508 to an aggravated offense increased punishment after the fact | SORA is civil/regulatory; retroactive application upheld by Idaho precedent and statutory intent | Ex post facto challenge rejected: registration scheme construed as civil and not punitive enough to trigger ex post facto violation |
| Due process — entitlement to additional administrative process before equivalency ruling | Knox contends he was denied process because equivalency was effectively made when he moved in 2003 and again in 2015 without chance to present evidence; also claims out-of-state conviction makes difference | Registry followed IDAPA procedures, provided judicial-review route; designation of an offense as "aggravated" is a classification of the offense, not a stigmatizing label like "violent sexual predator" | Due process claim rejected: Knox had procedural protections through criminal proceedings in Oregon and the administrative/judicial review provided was adequate; no "badge of infamy" requiring additional process |
| Attorney fees request by Registry | N/A (Registry sought fees) | Registry sought fees under I.C. § 12-117 arguing appeal lacked basis | Denied: Registry did not prevail on jurisdictional issue and appeal was not frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Grand Canyon Dories, Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 121 Idaho 515 (jurisdictional filing period is jurisdictional)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (framework for determining whether registration statutes are civil or punitive)
- Groves v. State, 156 Idaho 552 (Idaho Ct. App.) (SORA held nonpunitive; aggravated-offense determination analogous to duty-to-register decisions)
- Smith v. State, 146 Idaho 822 (Idaho Supreme Court) ("violent sexual predator" designation requires heightened procedural protections because it functions as a badge of infamy)