State v. Daniel
Decision Date | 16 February 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 107,963,107,963 |
Citation | 410 P.3d 877 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jermaine DANIEL, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Christina M. Kerls, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the brief for appellant.
Shawn E. Minihan, assistant district attorney, Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the briefs for appellee.
Jermaine Daniel pled no contest to attempted kidnapping and domestic battery.He committed these crimes on April 21, 2011.When the district court sentenced Daniel 8 months later, the court informed Daniel that he was required to register as a violent offender pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq.The State argued that a recent amendment to KORA that went into effect on July 1, 2011, required him to register as a violent offender for his lifetime.SeeK.S.A. 2011 Supp. 22-4906(d)(9) and (d)(12).Daniel's counsel conceded that he was required to register but argued that the registration period should be for 10 years rather than the remainder of Daniel's life.The court declined to decide the matter at sentencing and asked the parties to brief the issue.The court then sentenced Daniel to an underlying prison term of 36 months and placed him on probation for 36 months.
The State later submitted a brief in which it argued that the 2011amendments to KORA applied retroactively to Daniel.Curiously, Daniel's counsel agreed.In his brief, Daniel acknowledged that registration Thereafter, the court held a brief hearing, at which Daniel was not present.Daniel's counsel told the court:
Consequently, Daniel was required to register as a violent offender for life based on the attempted kidnapping conviction.Daniel appealed.
After receiving new counsel on appeal, Daniel reversed his position and argued that retroactive application of KORA's lifetime registration requirement violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and that the 10-year registration requirement should apply to him.Alternatively, Daniel claimed that, according to State v. Myers , 260 Kan. 669, 923 P.2d 1024(1996), the public notification portion of KORA violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, so he must publicly register for only 10 years.
The Court of Appeals dispensed with the case without reaching the merits of Daniel's claims.It first held that Daniel invited error regarding his ex post facto claim when he conceded that registration was not punishment.State v. Daniel , No. 107,963, 2013 WL 3867381, *2-3(Kan. App.2013)(unpublished opinion).The court then determined that Daniel did not properly preserve his argument that he should only be required to register publicly for 10 years.2013 WL 3867381, at *3.We granted his petition for review.
Daniel contends that the Court of Appeals erred by jettisoning his claims on procedural grounds.Whether the doctrine of invited error applies is a question of law subject to unlimited review.State v. Hankins , 304 Kan. 226, 230, 372 P.3d 1124(2016).Likewise, we exercise plenary review over whether an issue is properly preserved for appellate review.SeeState v. Jones , 298 Kan. 324, 330, 311 P.3d 1125(2013).
Generally, constitutional claims cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.State v. Godfrey , 301 Kan. 1041, 1043, 350 P.3d 1068(2015)."Although exceptions to this general rule exist, parties seeking to raise an issue for the first time on appeal must assert the exceptions."State v. Beltz , 305 Kan. 773, 776, 388 P.3d 93(2017); see Supreme Court Rule 6.02(a)(5)(2017...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Genson
...grounds for reversal asserted for the first time on appeal are not properly before the appellate court for review. State v. Daniel , 307 Kan. 428, 430, 410 P.3d 877 (2018). But exceptions may apply when a newly asserted theory involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted fa......
-
State v. Bliss
...contexts, the need for preservation is inherent to the appellate process and defined through caselaw. See, e.g., State v. Daniel , 307 Kan. 428, 430, 410 P.3d 877 (2018) (discussing general rule that constitutional claims cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). Because this type of ......
-
State v. Hillard
...of the search of this device. "Generally, constitutional claims cannot be raised for the first time on appeal." State v. Daniel , 307 Kan. 428, 430, 410 P.3d 877 (2018). Still, we have recognized several exceptions to this general rule, including when a party establishes "the claim involves......
-
State v. Frantz
...998, 1009 (10th Cir. 2018). But parties generally may not raise constitutional claims for the first time on appeal. State v. Daniel , 307 Kan. 428, 430, 410 P.3d 877 (2018). Frantz does not cite to any point in the record where she raised this issue before the district court. See Kansas Sup......