{"id":1691,"date":"2019-09-06T16:09:50","date_gmt":"2019-09-06T21:09:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1691"},"modified":"2019-09-12T12:49:13","modified_gmt":"2019-09-12T17:49:13","slug":"state-v-perez-medina-kan-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/09\/06\/state-v-perez-medina-kan-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"State v. Perez-Medina (Kan. 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

State v. Perez-Medina, No. 114589 (Kan. 2019)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant was convicted of aggravated, non-sexual battery. Under Kansas law, if a deadly weapon was used, the person would be subject for inclusion in Kansas’ online registry, KORA, and subject to its restrictions. At sentencing, the judge found that Appellant used a deadly weapon, and thus imposed the KORA requirement onto him. Appellant sought review on the grounds that this constituted judicial fact-finding that imposed additional punishment in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey<\/i>. Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, and Appellant sought review from the Kansas Supreme Court, which was granted.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> Divided Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts with respect to the KORA issue. Under Kansas law, KORA is not punitive for either people convicted of violent or sexual offenses, and thus Apprendi<\/i> is not implicated.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n