Title: State v. Pewenofkit
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 109542
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: April 13, 2018

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 109,542 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
WILLIAM PEWENOFKIT, 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
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) (2018 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 authority 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 also deemed abandoned. 
 
Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed August 1, 2014. 
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; BENJAMIN L. BURGESS, judge. Opinion filed April 13, 2018. 
Judgment 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 Derek Schmidt, 
attorney general, were on the brief for appellee. 
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by 
 
BILES, J.:  In 2012, William 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' registration. 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 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States 
Constitution. 
 
The Court of Appeals' panel sua sponte dismissed the appeal because Pewenofkit 
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. 
Pewenofkit, No. 109,542, 2014 WL 3843080, at *1 (Kan. App. 2014) (unpublished 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 
considered 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 factual 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 3843080, at *2. 
 
3 
 
 
 
Pewenofkit sought our review, which we granted. Jurisdiction 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.  
 
THE FAILURE TO CHALLENGE THE PANEL'S DECISION 
 
When mentioning the panel's holding in 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) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 53) (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). 
 
Even if we were to generously construe Pewenofkit's petition for review to suggest 
error, his supplemental briefing fails 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 face of contrary authority is akin to failing to brief the 
issue).  
 
The panel expressly held that Pewenofkit'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 3843080, at *2. 
Pewenofkit did not challenge these holdings as error in the petition for review. In fact, he 
did not mention them. 
4 
 
 
 
We hold the petition for review fails to challenge the panel's rulings upon which 
dismissal was based. Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
STEGALL, J., not participating. 
MICHAEL J. MALONE, 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.