Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hayes v. State

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 9, 2017

Edmond L. Hayes, Appellant,
v.
State of Kansas, Appellee.

         SYLLABUS

         When 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 defendant's case.

         Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed October 18, 2013.

         Appeal 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.

          Carol Longenecker Schmidt and Shawn E. Minihan, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, were on the briefs for appellant.

          Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

          OPINION

          Stegall, J.

         Edmond 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.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         In 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.

         Before 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 sentence.

         On 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).

         After 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 injustice:

"[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, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.