1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 112,107

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

JESSE VILLA,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed April 10, 2015.

Appeal from Reno District Court; JOSEPH L. MCCARVILLE, III, judge. Opinion filed August 18, 2017. 

Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court is affirmed. Judgment of the district court is 

affirmed.

Samuel Schirer, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the brief for appellant. 

Keith E. Schroeder, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for 

appellee.

Per Curiam: Jesse Villa was convicted of aggravated battery 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 Villa used a deadly weapon to 

commit the offense. For the first time on appeal, Villa 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 
2

doubt. The persuasiveness of this challenge turns on whether KORA's requirements 

constitute punishment for his crime. We affirm the registration order.

The outcome of Villa's appeal 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, Villa 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 Meredith, 306 

Kan. at __, slip op. at 10 ("[A]nalysis of the [Kennedy v.] Mendoza-Martinez[, 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, Villa has not demonstrated, as he must, 

that the registration requirements constitute punishment. Because the registration 

requirements did not increase Villa'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.

Affirmed.

 * * *
3

BEIER, J., dissenting: Consistent with my votes in State v. Meredith, 306 Kan. 

___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 110,520, filed August 4, 2017); and State. v. Huey, 306 Kan. ___, 

___ P.3d ___ (No. 109,690, filed August 11, 2017), I respectfully dissent from the 

majority's decision in this case. 

"Kansas' requirement of offender registration—especially in its modern, maximally 

invasive, maximally pervasive, and infinitely more public incarnation—is punishment, 

certainly in effect if not in intent. It is no less so for a drug offender than for a sex 

offender or a violent offender. It is no less so when the Ex Post Facto Clause is before us 

than when Apprendi or the Eighth Amendment is before us." Meredith, 306 Kan. at ___, 

slip op. at 11-12 (Beier, J., dissenting).

ROSEN and JOHNSON, JJ., join the foregoing dissent.