Edmond L. Hayes, Appellant,
State of Kansas, Appellee.
the crime for which a defendant is being sentenced was
committed after the effective date of a new statute, there is
no ex post facto violation in applying the new statute to the
of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished
opinion filed October 18, 2013.
from Sedgwick District Court; Anthony J. Powell, judge.
Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court
is affirmed. Judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Longenecker Schmidt and Shawn E. Minihan, of Kansas Appellate
Defender Office, were on the briefs for appellant.
J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett,
district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were
on the brief for appellee.
L. Hayes appeals the district court's summary dismissal
of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. Although Hayes concedes that
the motion is untimely pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507(f)(1), he
argues that the court should have extended the time for him
to file the motion. Discerning no manifest injustice, we
affirm the denial of Hayes' motion.
and Procedural Background
April 1998, a jury convicted Hayes of involuntary
manslaughter, and the district court later sentenced Hayes to
31 months' imprisonment and 36 months' postrelease
supervision. At the time he committed the crime, the Kansas
Offender Registration Act (KORA) mandated that Hayes register
as a violent offender for 10 years after he was
"paroled, discharged or released" from prison. See
K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 22-4902(d)(5); K.S.A. 1997 Supp.
22-4906(a). Thereafter, Hayes was released from prison.
Hayes' registration term expired, the State charged him
with two counts of violating KORA, which it claimed occurred
on January 29, 2007. The first count was for failing to
inform the law enforcement agency of a new address within 10
days of a change, and the second was for failing to mail a
verification form to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI)
within 10 days of receipt. See K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-4904(b)
and (c)(4). Hayes pled guilty to the charges, and the court
sentenced him to a total controlling 41-month prison term but
granted him a dispositional departure to 36 months'
probation. In January 2011, the court revoked Hayes'
probation and ordered him to serve a modified 38-month prison
January 6, 2012, Hayes filed a pro se motion pursuant to
K.S.A. 60-1507, raising several constitutional challenges.
Among these claims, Hayes asserted that the 2006 amendments
to KORA constituted punishment under the Ex Post Facto
Clause, so they could not be retroactively applied to him.
The district court then appointed counsel to represent Hayes.
Counsel submitted a memorandum conceding that his
client's motion was untimely but arguing that
"[g]iven the nature of the Movant's conviction in
the underlying criminal case and the constitutional issues
raised in his current petition for relief, not to entertain
his current petition for relief would result in manifest
injustice." The State, on the other hand, argued that
Hayes could not show "an inability to timely access the
courts and/or a new issue for this court to consider."
In the alternative, the State claimed that the
constitutionality of KORA had been settled by this
court's decision in State v. Myers, 260 Kan.
669, 923 P.2d 1024 (1996).
the parties submitted written arguments, the district court
conducted a nonevidentiary hearing. Then District Judge
Anthony J. Powell ultimately agreed with the State and
adopted its position that Hayes could not show manifest
"[T]here's no showing of manifest injustice because
there's no explanation for the delay. Clearly Mr. Hayes
knows how to access the courts. He's done so on numerous
occasions. He's out of time. It's too late. Finally,
I would, I guess, make the observation that the issue at
least as to the . . . relief requested and, ...