State v. Daniel, 107,963
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Citation | 410 P.3d 877 |
Docket Number | No. 107,963,107,963 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jermaine DANIEL, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 16 February 2018 |
410 P.3d 877
STATE of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Jermaine DANIEL, Appellant.
No. 107,963
Supreme Court of Kansas.
February 16, 2018
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.
The opinion of the court was delivered by Stegall, J.:
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. See K.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 2011 amendments to KORA applied retroactively to Daniel. Curiously, Daniel's counsel agreed. In his brief, Daniel acknowledged that registration "is not considered punishment. Therefore, a retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. [Citation omitted.]" Thereafter, the court held a brief hearing, at which Daniel was not present. Daniel's counsel told the court:
"[U]nfortunately, my brief was consistent with the [S]tate according to the Evans case and how the law's been applied concerning sexual offender registration. It is retroactive, and it is my legal belief my client is obligated to register for the lifetime due to the change that took place July 1st of 2011. However, obviously, if he chooses to appeal this for the unconstitutionality of the law at this time, then, that's his option. But as far as from a legal standpoint, I don't believe I'm able to ask this Court to make a decision contrary to what I believe the law is, and what I believe is clear. And so, that said, Judge, I believe this Court should order my client to register for the duration...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Genson, No. 121,014
...for the first time on 481 P.3d 144 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 facts and finally d......
-
State v. Bliss
...is inherent to the appellate process and defined through caselaw. See, e.g., 498 P.3d 1235 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 preservation is develo......
-
State v. Hillard
...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 only a questi......
-
State v. Frantz
...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 Supreme Court Rule ......