Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
38 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2017On appeal, Brown presented three issues: (1) whether imposition of a registration requirement violated the Ex Post Facto Clause; (2) if so, whether the court lacked a sufficient factual basis for his plea; and (3) whether the court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. 2017On appeal, Brown presented three issues: (1) whether imposition of a registration requirement violated the Ex Post Facto Clause; (2) if so, whether the court lacked a sufficient factual basis for his plea; and (3) whether the court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2020This court granted only the State's petition and ordered the parties to address whether, given this court's holding in State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733, 750 , 415 P.3d 430 (2018), the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to address the registration requirement at all. 2020This court granted only the State's petition and ordered the parties to address whether, given this court's holding in State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733, 750 , 415 P.3d 430 (2018), the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to address the registration requirement at all. | 2 | 3 |
Alleyne v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2018See Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ , 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2161 , 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013); Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 ." Because, in my view, KORA registration qualifies as punishment, under the Due Process Clause, any finding of fact required to impose registration requirements must be made by a jury. 2018See Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ , 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2161 , 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013); Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 ." Because, in my view, KORA registration qualifies as punishment, under the Due Process Clause, any finding of fact required to impose registration requirements must be made by a jury. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Scheetzgreen1 sentence2026See Scheetz, 318 Kan. at 54-55 (emphasizing the importance of confining a party's appellate arguments to the grounds presented to the district court so the district court may consider as fully as possible whether the evidence should be admitted); Unruh, 320 Kan. at 262-63 (examining a due process argument never considered by the district court where Unruh did not challenge imposition of a registration requirement at sentencing). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Unruhgreen1 sentence2026See Scheetz, 318 Kan. at 54-55 (emphasizing the importance of confining a party's appellate arguments to the grounds presented to the district court so the district court may consider as fully as possible whether the evidence should be admitted); Unruh, 320 Kan. at 262-63 (examining a due process argument never considered by the district court where Unruh did not challenge imposition of a registration requirement at sentencing). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Juarezgreen1 sentence2026He went on to note that KORA does not require a court to give advance notice of its intention to impose the discretionary registration requirement. 312 Kan. at 27; see K.S.A. 22-4904(a)(1) (At the time of conviction or adjudication "for an offense requiring registration" the court shall inform the offender, on the record of the registration requirement.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2020One category of individuals required to register are 'violent offenders.' KORA provides multiple ways in which a person may qualify as a 'violent offender' and thus be subject to the Act's registration requirement." State v. Carter, 311 Kan. 206 , 209, 459 P.3d 186, 189 (2020). 2020One category of individuals required to register are 'violent offenders.' KORA provides multiple ways in which a person may qualify as a 'violent offender' and thus be subject to the Act's registration requirement." State v. Carter, 311 Kan. 206 , 209, 459 P.3d 186, 189 (2020). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Juvenile Malegreen2 sentences2019In United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit found the registration requirement, even if humiliating, failed to meet the high bar for cruel and unusual punishment claims: "Although defendants understandably note that SORNA may have the effect of exposing juvenile defendants and their families to potential shame and humiliation for acts committed while still an adolescent, the statute does not meet the high standard of cruel and unusual punishment. 2019In United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit found the registration requirement, even if humiliating, failed to meet the high bar for cruel and unusual punishment claims: "Although defendants understandably note that SORNA may have the effect of exposing juvenile defendants and their families to potential shame and humiliation for acts committed while still an adolescent, the statute does not meet the high standard of cruel and unusual punishment. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smith-Parkergreen2 sentences2019See State v. Smith-Parker , 301 Kan. 132 , 154, 340 P.3d 485 (2014) ("A gun is unquestionably a deadly weapon."); Black's Law Dictionary 1909 (11th ed. 2019) (term "deadly weapon" includes "[a]ny firearm or other device ... calculated or likely to produce death"). 2019See State v. Smith-Parker , 301 Kan. 132 , 154, 340 P.3d 485 (2014) ("A gun is unquestionably a deadly weapon."); Black's Law Dictionary 1909 (11th ed. 2019) (term "deadly weapon" includes "[a]ny firearm or other device ... calculated or likely to produce death"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dickeygreen2 sentences2018The majority reads our decision in State v. Dickey , 305 Kan. 217 , 222, 380 P.3d 230 (2016), as creating a theoretical requirement to remand for resentencing any time a registration requirement is vacated, if the registration requirement were to be considered part of the criminal sentence. 2018The majority reads our decision in State v. Dickey , 305 Kan. 217 , 222, 380 P.3d 230 (2016), as creating a theoretical requirement to remand for resentencing any time a registration requirement is vacated, if the registration requirement were to be considered part of the criminal sentence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Donaldsongreen1 sentence2013See Donaldson, 279 Kan. at 699 (concluding joinder is proper when defendant provides evidence of one crime while committing another). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Comangreen1 sentence2012Ultimately, tire dissent determined that the legislature specifically intended to exclude the K.S.A. 21-3505(a)(l) version of criminal sodomy from the registration requirement of K.S.A. 22-4902(c)(4) and that the rule of lenity will not permit the general catch-all provision of subsection (c)(14) to override that exclusion. 42 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnickgreen1 sentence2011In so holding, the Court reasoned that it had historically “treated as nonjurisdictional other types of threshold requirements that claimants must complete, or exhaust, before filing a lawsuit.” 559 U.S. at 166. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Marinelli
green
2 sentences2023And although the Supreme Court found the "more expansive language" of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3602(a) covered the district court's deadly weapon finding in Marinelli's case, it noted that even those instances where the registration requirement springs from the convicted offense merely "should be caught up in the jurisdictional net cast by the first sentence in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3602(a)"—but "should be" does not a definitive answer make. 307 Kan. at 787 . 2020Therefore, it believes the registration requirement is not yet ripe for appellate review because "the District Court did not order Defendant to register nor did the District Court enter a judgment against him, the Court merely provided Defendant with a Notice of Duty to Register." In State v. Marinelli, 307 Kan. 768, 769 , 415 P.3d 405 (2018), the Kansas Supreme Court addressed appellate court jurisdiction in a criminal defendant's direct appeal of his KORA registration responsibilities. | 4 | 2019–2023 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2018The sentencing court had jurisdiction to include the registration requirement in the journal entry without making it a part of the sentence imposed from the bench ." ( Emphasis added.) 291 Kan. at 37 , 238 P.3d 246 . 2018The sentencing court had jurisdiction to include the registration requirement in the journal entry without making it a part of the sentence imposed from the bench ." ( Emphasis added.) 291 Kan. at 37 , 238 P.3d 246 . | 2 | 2014–2018 |
United States v. W.B.H.
green
2 sentences2016The Eleventh Circuit addressed this registration requirement in W.B.H. and held that SORNA is no different than the Alaska act at issue in Smith. 664 F.3d at 858-59 . 2016“The Eleventh Circuit addressed this registration requirement in W.B.H, and held that SORNA is no different than the Alaska act at issue in Smith. 664 F.3d at 858-59 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Smith v. Doe
green
2 sentences2016The Court reasoned that although a sex offender may be prosecuted for a registration violation, such prosecution is separate from the individuals original offense. 538 U.S. at 102 . 2016The Court reasoned that although a sex offender may be prosecuted for a registration violation, such prosecution is separate from the individual's original offense. 538 U.S. at 102 . | 2 | 2014–2016 |
District of Columbia v. Heller
green
2 sentences2010Even lawfully owned firearms were required to be “ ‘unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.’ ” 554 U.S. at 575 . 2009Even lawfully owned firearms were required to be “ ‘unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.’ ” 128 S. Ct. at 2788 . | 2 | 2009–2010 |
State v. Wilkinson
green
2 sentences2008In Wilkinson, 269 Kan. 603 , Syl. ¶ ¶ 8, 9, this court found no due process violation in a registration requirement that does not allow a hearing to determine the degree of threat posed by the defendant. 2000In State v. Wilkinson, 269 Kan. 603, 610 , 9 P.3d 1 (2000), the Kansas Supreme Court commented on an earlier case involving KORA and stated “the registration requirement imposed no affirmative disability or restraint, and that, while the burden of registering may cause discomfort, the act of registration alone was not punishment.” See State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669, 695-96 , 923 P.2d 1024 (1996), cert. denied 521 U.S. 1118 (1997). | 2 | 2000–2008 |
State v. Myers
green
2 sentences2000In State v. Wilkinson, 269 Kan. 603, 610 , 9 P.3d 1 (2000), the Kansas Supreme Court commented on an earlier case involving KORA and stated “the registration requirement imposed no affirmative disability or restraint, and that, while the burden of registering may cause discomfort, the act of registration alone was not punishment.” See State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669, 695-96 , 923 P.2d 1024 (1996), cert. denied 521 U.S. 1118 (1997). 2000In State v. Wilkinson, 269 Kan. 603, 610 , 9 P.3d 1 (2000), the Kansas Supreme Court commented on an earlier case involving KORA and stated “the registration requirement imposed no affirmative disability or restraint, and that, while the burden of registering may cause discomfort, the act of registration alone was not punishment.” See State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669, 695-96 , 923 P.2d 1024 (1996), cert. denied 521 U.S. 1118 (1997). | 2 | 1998–2000 |
State v. Keel
green
2 sentences2022Although the registration violation was classified as a nonperson felony at the time of Terrell's guilty plea in 2005, the presentence report reclassified it as a person felony under State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 , 357 P.3d 251 (2015). 2022Although the registration violation was classified as a nonperson felony at the time of Terrell's guilty plea in 2005, the presentence report reclassified it as a person felony under State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 , 357 P.3d 251 (2015). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Molnar
green
1 sentence2020The court also pointed out that convicted sex offenders typically would be informed of their statutory duty to register and, therefore, would have 52 actual notice. 222 Ill. 2d at 513 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Rocheleau
green
2 sentences2019Rocheleau, 307 Kan. at 765 ; Marinelli, 307 Kan. at 786 . 2019Rocheleau, 307 Kan. at 765 ; State v. Marinelli, 307 Kan. 768, 786 , 415 P.3d 405 (2018). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Simmons
green
1 sentence2017Because the registration requirement is not part of her sentence, we necessarily conclude there is no merit to Simmons' claim that her sentence was illegally modified." Simmons, 50 Kan. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Petersen-Beard
green
2 sentences2016All of this being said, we further acknowledge that todays decision by a new majority in State v. Petersen-Beard, 304 Kan. 192 , 377 P.3d 1127 (2016), argued a year after Doe v. Thompson, may influence whether the KORA holding of this case is available to be relied upon by violent offenders whose appeals have yet to be decided. 2016All of this being said, we further acknowledge that todays decision by a new majority in State v. Petersen-Beard, 304 Kan. 192 , 377 P.3d 1127 (2016), argued a year after Doe v. Thompson, may influence whether the KORA holding of this case is available to be relied upon by violent offenders whose appeals have yet to be decided. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Denmark-Wagner
green
2 sentences2014Like Mishmash , the court’s reference in State v. Denmark-Wagner, 292 Kan. 870, 884 , 258 P.3d 960 (2011), to the registration requirement as part of the defendant’s sentence is not a legal conclusion creating binding precedent but, again, appears to have been phrased that way for purposes of simplicity and brevity. 2014Like Mishmash , the court’s reference in State v. Denmark-Wagner, 292 Kan. 870, 884 , 258 P.3d 960 (2011), to the registration requirement as part of the defendant’s sentence is not a legal conclusion creating binding precedent but, again, appears to have been phrased that way for purposes of simplicity and brevity. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Coman
green
2 sentences2013The court said this court’s interpretation rendered this section of the statute superfluous, stating: “Why carve out a registration requirement where the victim is age 16 or 17, if the catch-all provision is intended to pull in all sexually motivated defendants anyway?” 294 Kan. at 95 . 2013In rejecting this analysis, the Supreme Court reasoned it was “counterintuitive” to think the legislature went to the trouble of omitting the misdemeanor crime from the list simply to eliminate the registration requirement for the “rare, if not nonexistent” circumstance in which a person commits the crime without sexual motivation. 294 Kan. at 94 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. MISHMASH
neutral
1 sentence2012State v. Mishmash, No. 103, 158, 2011 WL 426664 , at s4-5 (Kan. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. v. Southwest Homes of Arkansas, Inc. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Dumars
green
1 sentence2009App. 2d 600, 603 , 154 P.3d 1120 (2007), where the Court of Appeals held: “When an appellate court has remanded a case for further proceedings consistent with its mandate, a district court is obligated to effectuate the mandate and may consider only those matters essential to the implementation of the ruling of the appellate court.” *765 Garcia further argues that the district court’s finding of sexual motivation from the original sentencing — as evidenced by the court’s reference there to the registration requirement — referred exclusively to the rape, which conviction has been reversed and i | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Arizona v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2009Without engaging in any significant analysis, the Supreme Court apparently determined that an officer asking a passenger for his name, birth date, and identification, questioning him about his gang membership, ordering him out of the vehicle, and patting him down for officer safety did not “measurably extend the duration of the stop.” See 555 U.S. at 333 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Armbrust green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Van Hoet green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Kiansas v. Myers green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Rowe v. Burton green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| In Re Lynch red | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.