legislature intended the Kansas Offender Registration Act
(KORA) to be civil and nonpunitive for all classes of
Because the legislature intended KORA to be a regulatory
scheme that is civil and nonpunitive, only the clearest proof
will suffice to override legislative intent and transform
what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal
Charging documents do not bestow or confer subject matter
jurisdiction on state courts to adjudicate criminal cases;
the Kansas Constitution does.
Charging document sufficiency is a question of law subject to
de novo review.
Charging documents need only show that a case has been filed
in the correct court, e.g., the district court rather than
municipal court; show that the court has territorial
jurisdiction over the crime alleged; and allege facts that,
if proved beyond a reasonable doubt, would constitute a
Kansas crime committed by the defendant.
of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished
opinion filed July 19, 2013.
from Reno District Court; Trish Rose, judge. Judgment of the
Court of Appeals affirming the district court is affirmed on
the issues subject to review. Judgment of the district court
E. Schroeder, district attorney, Stephen D. Maxwell, senior
assistant district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney
general, were on the briefs for appellant/cross-appellee.
Patrick H. Dunn, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on
the briefs for appellee/cross-appellant.
J. Scuderi seeks review of the decision by a panel of the
Court of Appeals affirming two convictions and sentences for
failure to register as required by the Kansas Offender
Registration Act, K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq. He argues the panel
erred because (1) the registration requirements are ex post
facto punishment for a drug offense he committed before
registration was required for such offenses; (2) his
sentences were imposed in violation of the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
because they were calculated using his criminal history,
which was not submitted to a jury and proved beyond a
reasonable doubt; and (3) the complaint initiating one of the
convictions was deficient because it failed to allege he
resided in the county where the State alleged he failed to
register. We affirm.
hold that the panel properly rejected Scuderi's ex post
facto and criminal history score claims. See State v.
Shaylor, 306 Kan. 1049, 1051-52, 400 P.3d 177 (2017)
(holding defendant failed to demonstrate retroactive
imposition of registration requirements for drug offense was
punishment as required to prevail on ex post facto claim);
State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 45-48, 41 P.3d 781
(2002) (holding Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments do not
require jury findings on criminal history used to calculate
sentence). We also affirm the panel's outcome on the
defective complaint issue, although we do so using the
analysis in State v. Sayler, 306 Kan.__, __ P.3d __
(No. 110, 048, this day decided), slip op. at 6-7 (holding
charging documents do not bestow or confer subject matter
jurisdiction on state courts to adjudicate criminal cases and
further holding similarly worded charging document alleged
facts that if proved beyond a reasonable doubt would
constitute KORA violation).
and Procedural Background
2002, Scuderi was convicted of possession of methamphetamine
with intent to sell, a violation of K.S.A. 65-4161. In 2010,
the State charged Scuderi in two cases with failing to
register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act, K.S.A.
22-4901 et seq.
moved to dismiss the complaints because the prosecutions
violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States
Constitution. He argued the registration requirement, which
did not exist at the time of his original offense,
retroactively increased the offense's punishment. He
cited the in-person reporting requirements and the fees
associated with registration.
arguments on the motions, Scuderi's counsel
"conced[ed] that the courts have held generally that the
duty to register . . . is not punitive and not a violation of
ex post facto." But counsel contended the prior cases
did not address the $20 registration fee, which counsel
"would consider a fine . . . ." Nor, he argued, did
they consider the change from mail to in-person registration.
Scuderi presented no evidence to support his arguments.
district court denied the motions, reasoning that our
appellate courts had determined the registration requirements
of the Kansas Offender Registration Act are not punishment
and therefore do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the
Constitution. The court cited State v. Evans, 44
Kan.App.2d 945, 242 P.3d 220');">242 P.3d 220 (2010).
consolidated jury trial, Scuderi stipulated that in
"February through April 2010, [he] was a person
convicted of a crime that required [him] to register in
writing to the sheriff's office in the county of his
residence . . . and . . . prior to February 2010, knew of his
requirement to so register." His defense was that the
State did not prove he lived in Reno County, as ...