M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

 
Home
Verdicts
and
Decisions
Search Database
Recent Cases
Cases By Subject
Report A Case
Lawyers
Search Directory
By State & City
Add A
Lawyer Listing
Court
Reporters
Recent Listings
Search
By States & City
Add A Basic
Reporter Listing
Expert
Witnesses
Recent Listings
Search Directory
By State & Expertise
Add A Basic
Expert Witness
Listing
MoreLaw
Store
The Store
Recent Listings
(Search)
Add A Basic
Classified Ad
Links
County Seats
State Links
Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Date: 11-14-2017

Case Style:

STATE OF KANSAS v. ANTHONY E. GRIFFIN

<:h2>

Case Number: 110,823

Judge: Per Curiam Hon. Marla J. Luckert, Hon. Lawton R. Nuss, Chief Justice; Hon. Carol A. . Hon. Dan Biles, and Hon. Caleb Stegall.

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

Plaintiff's Attorney: Lesley A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, Emily M. Barclay, legal intern, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general

Defendant's Attorney: Corrine E. Johnson, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office

Description: 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.] MendozaMartinez[, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69, 83 S. Ct. 554, 9 L. Ed. 2d 644 (1963),] factors requires a robust record because the effects prong of the applicable legal test obliges an appellate court to premise its legal conclusion on at least some fact-intensive questions—i.e., the legitimacy of the public safety interests at stake, the effectiveness of the alternative purpose to promote public safety, etc.").

Without a factual record, we cannot conclude that KORA's registration requirements imposed on violent offenders are so punitive as to override the legislature's intent that KORA be a civil remedy. Therefore, Griffin has not demonstrated, as he must, that the registration requirements constitute punishment. Because the registration requirements did not increase Griffin's punishment under the law of this case, it was not necessary that his use of a deadly weapon be found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.

Outcome: We affirm the lower courts' judgment on the issue subject to our review.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2017 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.