State v. Griffin, 081817 KSSC, 110, 823
|Docket Nº:||110, 823|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Anthony E. Griffin, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Corrine E. Johnson, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the brief for appellant. Lesley A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, Emily M. Barclay, legal intern, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Beier, J., dissenting: Rosen and Johnson, JJ., join the foregoing dissent.|
|Case Date:||August 18, 2017|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Kansas|
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed December 19, 2014.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Gregory L. Waller, judge. Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court is affirmed as to the issue subject to review. Judgment of the district court is affirmed as to the issue subject to review.
Corrine E. Johnson, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the brief for appellant.
Lesley A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, Emily M. Barclay, legal intern, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
Anthony Griffin was convicted of aggravated battery and aggravated assault and ordered to register as a violent offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq., after a district court judge found Griffin used a deadly weapon to commit those offenses. For the first time on appeal, Griffin argues his registration requirement violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the fact was not submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The persuasiveness of that challenge turns on whether KORA's requirements constitute punishment for his crimes. We affirm.
The outcome of Griffin's challenge regarding judicial factfinding is controlled by State v. Meredith, 306 Kan. __, __ P.3d __ (No. 110, 520, filed August 4, 2017), slip op. at 10, and State v. Huey, 306 Kan. __, __ P.3d __ (No. 109, 690, filed August 11, 2017). Like the appellants in those cases, Griffin offers no fact-based arguments on the factors we must consider in determining whether the Act's effects render it punitive as applied to violent offenders because he raises his Apprendi challenge-and, consequently, his argument that the registration requirements are punishment-for the first time on appeal. See 306 Kan. at __, Meredith, slip op. at 10 ("[A]nalysis of the [Kennedy v.]
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP