Background
Terrance Isaiah Sims was convicted of three offenses, including two felonies, for failing to pay a total of $60 in fees under the Kansas Offender Registration Act, even though he appeared at the sheriff’s office to register. He argued that imposing criminal liability for nonpayment of the fees violated substantive due process because the scheme lacked a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. The Kansas Court of Appeals rejected that argument and affirmed.
During Kansas Supreme Court review, appellate counsel identified authority supporting a procedural due process theory. In 2019, a majority held that counsel performed deficiently by failing to raise that theory earlier, retained jurisdiction, and remanded for a determination of prejudice. The district court found prejudice in January 2020, but neither party filed the decision with the Supreme Court within the ordered 30-day period. The State finally submitted it in 2024 after the court requested a status update.
The Court’s Holding
The five participating justices unanimously agreed that Sims’ three convictions must be reversed. The court therefore reversed both the Court of Appeals’ judgment and the district court’s judgment. Justice Standridge did not participate because of her prior involvement with the case while serving on the Court of Appeals, and Justice Luckert had retired.
No single rationale commanded a majority. Justice Stegall, joined by Justices Wall and Walsh, concluded that imposing strict criminal liability—potentially a felony and imprisonment—for failing to pay a $20 administrative registration fee was likely arbitrary and not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Chief Justice Rosen, joined by Justice Biles, would instead leave the district court’s prejudice finding undisturbed because the State failed to comply timely with the Supreme Court’s order for submitting the remand decision. Accordingly, the court did not definitively hold that the fee statute is facially unconstitutional.
Key Takeaways
- Sims’ three convictions for failing to pay KORA registration fees were reversed.
- The participating justices agreed on the result but produced no majority rationale establishing binding constitutional analysis.
- Three justices viewed the criminal fee provision as likely irrational under substantive due process, while two relied on the State’s procedural failure following remand.
Why It Matters
The decision eliminates Sims’ convictions but leaves unresolved whether K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-4905(l) facially violates substantive due process. The three-justice plurality’s reasoning nevertheless signals serious constitutional concern about imposing felony liability on registrants who comply with registration requirements but fail to pay an administrative fee.
The separate concurrence also underscores the consequences of disregarding an appellate court’s directions after a limited remand, particularly when the unreported ruling is adverse to the party later seeking review.