1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

N o

. 109 , 542

S TATE OF K ANSAS , Appell ee ,

v

.
W ILLIAM P EWENOFKIT , Appell ant

.

SYLLABUS BY THE COUR T

1. A party must allege an issue was decided erroneously by the Court of Appeals for the issue to be properly before the Supreme Court on petition for review. Supreme Court
Rule 8.03( h )(1) (201 8 Kan. S. Ct. R. 53).

2. A failure to support an argument with pertinent authority or to show why it is sound despite a lack of supporting author ity or in the face of contrary authority is akin to failing to brief an issue. Therefore, an argument that is not supported with pertinent authority is deemed waived and abandoned. Further, a point raised incidentally in a brief and not argued therein is a lso deemed abandoned.

Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed August 1, 2014

. Appeal from Sedgwick District C ourt; B ENJAMIN L. B URGESS , judge. Opinion filed April 13 , 2018

. Jud gment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal is affirmed

.

Rachel L. Pickering, Kimberly Streit Vogelsberg
, and Joanna Labastida
, of Kansas Appellate
Defender Office
, were on the briefs for appellant.2

Lance J. Gillett
, assistant district attorney
, Marc Bennett , district attorney, and De rek Schmidt
, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

B ILES , J.: In 20 12, W illiam Pewenofkit pleaded no contest to kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary for crimes occurring in March 2011. At
the time of his crimes, the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), K.S.A. 22

- 4901 et
seq

. , required 10 years' regist ration . But between the crimes and his plea, statutory amendments enlarged this to lifetime registration

. On appeal
, Pewenofkit argued for the
first time his lifetime registration v iolated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States
Constitution

.

The Co urt of Appeals ' panel sua sponte dismissed the appeal because Pewe nofkit
failed to show how his new arguments fell within any recognized exception to the general rule that "issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised on appeal." State v.
P ewenofkit , No. 109,542, 2014 WL 384 3 080, at *1 (Kan. App

. 20 14) (unpublished opinion ). The panel noted Supreme Court Rule 6.02(a)(5) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 39) required an appellant to explain why an issue not raised with the district court should be

con sidered for the first time on appeal, citing State v. Breeden , 297 Kan. 567, 574, 304 P.3d 660 (2013). 2014 WL 3843080 , at *1. Finally, the panel held Pewenofkit's arguments involved both fact ual and legal questions
, and observed the record on appeal

was devoid of any attempt by Pewenofkit to establish the punitive effect or negative consequences he suffered because of registration

— a critical part of the ex post facto
claim. 2014 WL 384 3 080, at *2.3

Pewenofkit sought our review, which we granted. Jurisdict ion is proper. See State
v. Rocheleau
, 307 Kan. __, __ P.3d __ (No. 110,243, this day decided), slip op. at 6

- 7;
State v. Marinelli
, 307 Kan. __, __ P.3d __ (No. 111,227, this day decided), slip op. at 26

.

T HE F AILURE TO C HALLENGE THE P ANEL ' S D ECISION

W hen mentioning the panel's holding i n his petition for review, Pewenofkit states only that he "addressed reviewability in his brief." No other effort was made to challenge the panel's reasons for dismissing his appeal. This court has held that a party must challenge on petition for review a dispositive procedural holding of the Court of Appeals.
State v. Allen , 293 Kan. 793, Syl. ¶ 3, 268 P.3d 1198 (2012) ; see also Supreme Court Rule 8.03( h )(1) (201 8 Kan. S. Ct. R. 53 ) (a party must allege an issue was deci ded erroneously by the Court of Appeals for the issue to be properly before the Supreme Court on petition for review).

Even if we were to generously construe Pewenofkit's petition for review to suggest error, his supplemental briefing fail s to explain why the panel erred. See Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts , 296 Kan. 636, 645, 294 P.3d 287 (2013) (failure to support an argument with pertinent authority or to show why it is sound despite a lack of supporting authority or in the fa ce of contrary authority is akin to failing to brief the issue).

T he panel expressly held that Pewe nofkit's merits arguments could not be raised for the first time on appeal because they involved both factual and legal matters

. The panel went on to note the record on appeal failed to provide any factual basis upon which to analyze his ex post facto claims on appeal. Pewenofkit
, 2014 WL 384 3 080, at *2.
Pewenofkit did not challenge th ese holding s as error in the petition for review . In fact, he
did not ment ion them

.4

We hold the petition for review fails to challenge the panel's ruling s upon which
dismissal was based. Accordin g ly , we affirm.

S TEGALL , J., not participating.
M ICHAEL J. M ALONE , Senior Judge, assigned. 1

1 REPORTER'S NOTE: Senior Judge Malone was appointed to hear case No. 109,542 vice Justice Stegall under the authority vested in the Supreme Court by K.S.A. 20

- 2616.