WYCO deputy fired, charged with pocketing money from sex offenders

7-1-17 Kansas:

Kansas City, KS - A Wyandotte County deputy faces felony charges for stealing money intended for the Sheriff's office, according to the county prosecutor.

Jay Pennington,38, was team leader for the WYCO sheriff's Offender Registration Unit (ORU) and responsible for taking cash fees from registered sex offenders.

Prosecutor Michael Dupree alleges Pennington was making fake receipts and pocketing the $20 cash fees. It's not clear yet how much money is missing.

He was fired Thursday, June 29, and arrested.

Pennington is charged with Official Misconduct, Making False Information, Unlawful Acts Concerning Computers, and Forgery . He is free on bond. ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

After years of woe from total identity theft by sex offender, man sees hope of reclaiming name

10-31-15 Kansas:

WICHITA, Kansas — The decades-long nightmare that ruined Marcus Calvillo's life started when he was a teenager and was wrongly accused of writing bad checks. His driver's license was later revoked for a slew of unpaid traffic tickets he never received. Then he got fired from his job as a cable installer, being told only, "You know what you did."

Today, the 45-year-old Texas man can't keep a job, pay his bills or support his children. But a case unfolding in federal court in Kansas is offering him the first real hope of clearing his name, after federal prosecutors charged a convicted child sex offender with assuming Calvillo's entire identity.

"My whole life has been put on hold because of this person, and it has gotten worse and worse and worse," Calvillo said.

After years of fighting to straighten it out, Calvillo, who was born in Oregon, had about given up when he read an Associated Press story about a total identity theft case in 2013 involving Houston teacher Candida Gutierrez. He contacted the federal prosecutor in Kansas who was involved in that, thinking the official, Assistant U.S. Attorney Brent Anderson, might help him as well.

Anderson said he found Calvillo's case "especially horrible, frustrating, disheartening," because the impostor in Kansas was convicted of a child sex crime.

It illustrates the fallout of "total identity theft," in which con artists go beyond financial fraud. It typically involves people living illegally in the United States who initially use the identities to get jobs. Prosecutors say the workers often then use the identities of U.S. citizens for years — entangling employment records, criminal histories, credit, government benefit accounts and even health information.

The impact can be far more devastating. The thief who stole Gutierrez's identity didn't just open fraudulent credit and bank accounts. The woman used her persona to get a job, a driver's license, a mortgage and medical care for her children. She even listed Gutierrez's name as the mother on the birth certificates of her two U.S.-born children.

More than 330,000 identity theft complaints were lodged with the Federal Trade Commission last year. While it doesn't track total identity fraud, 17 percent of the complaints involved more than one type of identity theft.

"All indications are that this is something that is rampant, and once a person finds out that their number is being used by somebody else — as Mr. Calvillo will attest — it is very, very difficult to deal with it and get any peace, any real assurance that nobody is going to be using that number again," Anderson said.

When the man who assumed Calvillo's identity had his first run-in with law enforcement as a teenager, his fingerprints became linked to Calvillo's name in crime databases. So did his subsequent convictions for indecent liberties with a child, bribery, drug offenses and others.

Calvillo was in his 20s when he learned his identity had been hijacked by a sex offender. After being turned down for numerous jobs, Calvillo demanded that the clerk at a temporary employment service explain why he wouldn't be hired there either — prompting her to highlight the crimes on his background check and give him a copy.

"I almost broke down," he recalled. "Oh my God! This is why I couldn't get this job."

Complicating Calvillo's efforts over the years is a Kansas statute aimed at helping officials keep track of those convicted of crimes that has been routinely interpreted as requiring an inmate to refer to himself, and be referred to by the Department of Corrections, by the name under which he was convicted.

Calvillo, a father of six, said he has gotten a divorce and owes more than $40,000 in child support he cannot pay while working occasionally at odd jobs. He went to cosmetology school, but then couldn't get a license. He tangled with the Internal Revenue Service over wages paid to the impostor, who worked at a Kansas meatpacking plant. He lost his house.

Then, in September, federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment against the man accused of impersonating Calvillo. Fernando Neave-Ceniceros, 43, a Mexican national, was charged with aggravated identity theft, making a false statement to the government, misuse of a Social Security number, and false claim of U.S. citizenship.

Neave-Ceniceros, an inmate at the Ellsworth Correctional Facility, did not respond to a letter seeking comment. Court records do not show an attorney.

To set Calvillo's record straight, federal prosecutors plan to go back to the counties where the alleged impostor was convicted and seek to correct the defendant's name.

"I think we will be able to get that done through the U.S. attorney's office eventually with the help of the courts and state officials and local officials," Anderson said. "But it is still going to require a lot of time and effort." ..Source.. by ROXANA HEGEMAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kansas Supreme Court reverses itself in sentencing case affecting hundreds of inmates

9-21-15 Kansas:

A Kansas Supreme Court ruling issued last year could have opened the prison doors for hundreds of dangerous inmates.

But in an unusual reversal of that ruling, the court’s justices appear to have slammed the doors shut.

And the state’s prosecutors, who feared that the previous ruling could create a public safety crisis, are breathing a big sigh of relief. “We were very happy to see what they did,” said Wyandotte County District Attorney Jerry Gorman.

The complicated and technical legal case has to do with how an offender’s prior convictions are calculated under state sentencing guidelines. That calculation affects a criminal’s sentence length for a new conviction.

A defendant who previously committed felony crimes against persons — such as murder, robbery, aggravated assault and most sex offenses — generally receives a longer sentence than someone with previous convictions for “nonperson” felonies like forgery and theft.

But before the state adopted the guidelines in 1993, it did not classify felonies as person or nonperson.

Another state law mandated that “unclassified felonies and misdemeanors” should be considered as nonperson crimes for sentencing purposes.

As a result, attorneys for a convicted armed robber successfully argued to the Supreme Court last year that his convictions for crimes prior to 1993 should not have been counted as person crimes.

Though the ruling pertained to prior convictions from other states, some in the legal community believed it could also affect prior in-state convictions.

The ruling brought a rush of appeals across the state from dozens of inmates seeking to have their sentences recalculated and reduced.

It also prompted the Kansas Legislature to amend the sentencing law so that felony convictions prior to 1993 will be classified as person or nonperson felonies based on comparable crimes in place at the time the new crime is committed.

Lawmakers also stated that the new amendments should be applied retroactively.

The changed law went into effect in April.

Then in late August, the Kansas Supreme Court issued a new opinion that reversed its 2014 ruling.

Looking at the totality of the original sentencing guidelines law, the court found that the Legislature intended for all prior convictions to be considered for sentencing purposes and that those must be classified as person or nonperson. Determining the distinction between the two should be based on the comparable Kansas offense in place at the time the current crime was committed.

Because of its new ruling, the court said it was not necessary for it to consider the constitutionality of the 2015 amendments made by the Legislature.

“It will significantly reduce the number of potential appeals by inmates asking for reduced sentences,” said Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe.

Both Howe and Gorman from Wyandotte County said it was rare for the court to reverse one of its own decisions after such a short period of time.

Gorman said that typically such reversals come after a longer period of time when the makeup of the court has changed significantly.

But in this case, the makeup of the court was virtually the same. Only one position had changed, and that new justice voted the same way on the issue as the justice he replaced.

“It was a very unique situation,” Howe said. ..Source.. by Tony Rizzo

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Appeals court rejects judge’s order that a man not have sex without contraception

7-22-15 Kansas:

A man’s proclivity for procreation prompted a federal judge in Kansas City to impose an unusual restriction on the man’s sex life after his release from prison.

The judge ordered Christopher J. Harris — the father of 10 children by seven women — to “not participate in any unprotected sex activities” without the approval of his probation officer.

Not surprisingly, Harris appealed. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court ruled that U.S. District Judge Howard Sachs exceeded his authority when ordering the “novel” condition.

The appeals court found that the order was “not reasonably related” to the factors that govern sentencing in federal cases.

Harris, however, won’t be getting out of prison to celebrate Tuesday’s ruling anytime soon.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 15-year prison sentence Sachs imposed last year after Harris was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Harris, 32, is not eligible for release until 2026, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Sachs surprised everyone in the courtroom when he brought up the possibility of imposing the special condition of release on Harris, according to the appeals court’s ruling Tuesday.

Noting the number of children Harris had fathered, the judge opined that Harris was “creating a very serious social problem.”

Later in the hearing, Sachs again said it was a “social problem of apparently a great deal of unprotected sex.”

Harris and his attorney objected to the proposed condition, while prosecutors refrained from taking a position on what they termed “an unexpected situation.”

Sachs said he was not trying to target Harris and noted he had contemplated imposing similar restrictions in other cases “when there appears to be a problematic number of illegitimate children.”

A week after imposing the sentence and special condition of release, the judge clarified his decision in a written memorandum.

“The defendant shall use contraceptives before engaging in sexual activity that may otherwise cause pregnancy unless such use would violate his religious scruples or is expressly rejected by his sexual partner,” Sachs wrote.

He noted that the condition probably would be the subject of an appeal.

“Irresponsible sexual conduct by defendants under supervision greatly burdens women who may be unwilling to conceive children as well as offspring routinely abandoned by biological fathers,” Sachs wrote. ..Source.. by Tony Rizzo

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Ruling prohibits blanket ban on Internet use for parolees

6-9-2015 Kansas:

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) - A blanket ban on Internet use unlawfully deprives parolees convicted of sex crimes of more liberty than necessary because the Internet has become a necessary part of modern life, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said the wording in a standard condition of supervised release used by the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services Office for the District of Kansas conflicts with a 2001 ruling from the court because it suggests probation officers can completely ban a means of communication. The court noted that Internet use has become “even more central to participation in the civic and economic life of our society” since then.

However, the appeals court ultimately allowed some restrictions against Kansas parolee Ronald Ullmann to stand in the case at hand. That is because the lower district court had modified them in Ullmann’s case to clarify that it was restricting - not completely prohibiting - his use of computers, cellphones and other Internet-capable devices.

The federal probation office for the Kansas district did not immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment, and the U.S. attorney’s office declined comment. Ullmann’s defense attorneys did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Ullmann pleaded guilty to making a false statement, a charge that arose from sexually explicit conversations between him and an undercover FBI agent posing online as a 13-year-old. Ullmann was sentenced to five years in 2009, with the prison time to be followed by three years of supervised release. When released from prison in April 2014, he became subject to restrictions on his Internet use.

The federal probation office for the Kansas district told the appeals court that it intends to impose “the standard sex offender supervision condition” as part of its new Computer and Internet Monitoring Program, known as CIMP. ..Source.. by ROXANA HEGEMAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kansas court opposes lifetime parole for juvenile offender

6-9-2015 Kansas:

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that lifetime parole for a juvenile convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child violates the Constitution.

In an opinion issued Friday, the high court reversed an appeals court ruling, saying the lower court was wrong to uphold lifetime post-release supervision for a man who pleaded guilty to a 2009 sexual assault on a 13-year-old he committed when he was 17.

The high court says the lifetime supervision in the case “categorically constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.” The court has previously held that lifetime parole isn’t too severe a punishment for adult sex offenders.

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports that the court sent the case back to Sedgwick County for post-release supervision sentencing. ..Source.. by Staff

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Prosecutors see chilling result from Kansas court ruling

9-23-2014 Kansas:

While being escorted from a Johnson County courtroom in 1996, Patrick Lynn — convicted of rape for the third time in a third state — shouted, “You ain’t seen the last of me.”

A ruling late Friday afternoon by the Kansas Supreme Court could make that return to court a reality, not just for Lynn, but for more than 200 violent career criminals who could see their prison sentences cut dramatically.

Prosecutors across Kansas say it could have a potentially devastating effect on public safety.

“It’s very disappointing,” said Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe. “In all likelihood, it will benefit some really horribly dangerous inmates.”

Friday’s ruling helps inmates who had prior felony convictions in states outside Kansas. Authorities estimate that about 235 inmates could benefit, said Scott Schultz, executive director of the Kansas Sentencing Commission.

At issue is how a defendant’s prior felony convictions are classified under state sentencing guidelines in place since July 1, 1993.

Under the guidelines, a defendant’s criminal history factors into his sentence for his new crime. A defendant who previously committed crimes against persons — such as sex offenses, robbery, aggravated assault and murder — receives a lengthier sentence than someone with previous convictions for “nonperson” crimes like forgery and theft.

Four years ago, convicted armed robber Jimmy Murdock appealed the state’s use of the “crimes against persons” classification for his sentencing in a 2010 conviction. The court lengthened his sentence because he had 1984 and 1990 robbery convictions from another state. ..Continued.. by TONY RIZZO

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kansas high court to hear offender registry case

9-11-2014 Kansas:

The Kansas Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Thursday on whether to uphold a judge's ruling that removed a convicted child molester's name from the state's offender registry — a case with implications for hundreds, if not thousands, of people whose listing requirements were retroactively lengthened.

This appeal hinges on whether the state's highest court agrees with Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks' finding that the retroactive application of the Kansas Offender Registration Act when the Legislature amended the law in 2011 violates the U.S. Constitution's ban on "ex post facto," or after-the-fact, punishments.

The justices must decide whether the amended registry law is an unconstitutional punishment or a permissible tool to protect public safety.

While the judge's initial ruling applied only to the 51-year-old Lenexa man who sued the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and the Johnson County Sheriff's Office, any Supreme Court ruling now would affect others on the registry whose reporting requirement was retroactively lengthened by a 2011 amendment to the state's law. High courts in other states have struck down similar registration laws that have been found to be too excessive.

"If the Court concludes that the effect of today's law is punitive, then the registration law at the time of a person's conviction controls their registration requirements. That rationale would extend to everyone subject to KORA," said Chris Joseph, the attorney representing the Lenexa man. "In short, many current registrants would presumably see their registration periods drop to 10 years or less."

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said the state's registry law fully complies with the requirements of the Adam Wash Act, a 2006 federal law that set national standards for monitoring sex offenders.

"It is important that Kansans' access to offender information continues to meet national standards and that our law be upheld to protect Kansas children," he said in an emailed statement Wednesday.

State law requires people convicted of certain sex, drug and violent crimes to register with law enforcement for between 15 years and life, depending on the severity of the crime. As of August, Kansas has 13,582 people listed on the registry: 8,086 for sex crimes; 2,854 for drug offenses; and 2,642 for violent crimes.

The man at the center of the lawsuit pleaded guilty in 2003 to having indecent liberties with a child/touching in Johnson County. At the time, he was required to remain on the registry for 10 years. But the Legislature's change to the law in 2011 extended the length of time such offenders must be registered to 25 years. The state then told the man, now a married father, that the law applied retroactively — meaning he had to remain registered until 2028.

Court documents identify him only as "John Doe," and one of the issues on appeal is whether the judge erred in allowing him to proceed pseudonymously in the litigation.

Hendricks said the Kansas offender law was punitive, noting that its requirements have become increasingly severe and social media creates a virtual forum for "shaming." It requires offenders to register in person four times a year and to pay a $20 fee each time or face a felony for failing to register. A notation of "R.O." on their Kansas driver's license identifies them as a registered offender.

The judge found the registry ostracizes offenders and requires them to remain registered longer than necessary. The state appealed. ..Source.. by ROXANA HEGEMAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACLU urges Kansas Supreme Court to hold criminal offender registry unconstitutional

See also: "ACLU: Kansas offender registry unconstitutional"

8-12-2014 Kansas:

The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday urged the Kansas Supreme Court to uphold a judge's ruling removing a child molester's name from the state's offender registry, arguing that the list undermines public safety by making it more difficult for criminals to reintegrate into a community.

The group filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the high court to uphold the ruling, which found the registry is unconstitutional because it ostracizes offenders and requires them to remain registered longer than necessary.

But the National Center for Victims of Crime in a separate filing urged the state's highest court to overturn the decision, saying the justices' ultimate decision in the case will "profoundly affect" Kansas crime victims.

Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks granted the convicted child molester's request last year and concluded the law was punitive, meaning it was a punishment that couldn't be retroactively enforced under the U.S. Constitution. The judge noted that the law requires offenders to register in person four times a year, pay a $20 fee each time and face a felony for failing to register. The state appealed.

While the judge's ruling applied only to the 50-year-old Lenexa man who sued the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and Johnson County Sheriff's Office, any ruling now by the Kansas Supreme Court on appeal would affect others on the registry whose reporting requirement was retroactively lengthened by a 2011 amendment to Kansas Offender Registration Act, or KORA.

The man at the center of the lawsuit pleaded guilty in 2003 to having indecent liberties with a child/touching in Johnson County. At the time, he was required to remain on the registry for 10 years. But the Legislature amended the law in 2011, extending the length of time such offenders must be registered to 25 years. The state then told the man, now a married father, that the law applied retroactively — meaning he had to remain registered until 2028. Court documents do not identify him.

The ACLU argued in its filing that the state registry law has been greatly expanded since the man was convicted.

"Under the present version of KORA, the registration and notification procedures impose punitive restraints and affirmative disabilities on the sex offender which interfere with employment, housing, education, financial recovery, and leads to ostracism of the offender," the ACLU wrote.

The National Center for Victims of Crime argued in a filing Friday that the 2011 amendments Kansas registry law are meant to serve the legitimate public interest of safety by registering offenders, citing a study that found 27 percent of them are likely to reoffend. Its brief also cited a recent federal court decision in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals finding that registration of sex offenders is not punitive in nature and does not violate the prohibition against retroactive punishments in the U.S. Constitution.

Kansas law requires people convicted of certain sex, drug and violent crimes to register with law enforcement for between 15 years and life, depending on the severity of the crime. Kansas has 13,582 people now listed on the registry: 8,086 for sex crimes; 2,854 for drug offenses; and 2,642 for violent crimes, the KBI said Tuesday. ..Source.. by ROXANA HEGEMAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kansas Attorney general appeals offender registry ruling

The decision the Kansas AG is appealing is found HERE. This writer believes this is a vindictive appeal and should be dismissed.

1-23-2014 Kansas:

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — The attorney general urged the Kansas Supreme Court on Wednesday to overturn a district judge's decision that allowed a child molester's name to be removed from the state's offender list.

The lengthy filing by the Kansas Attorney General's Office outlines, for the first time publicly, the state's arguments against the ruling last year by Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks. The judge ruled that the offender registry law was unconstitutional, saying it ostracizes offenders and requires them to remain registered longer than necessary.

The ruling applied to a 50-year-old Lenexa man who sued the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and Johnson County Sheriff's Office seeking to end his registration requirement. However, a ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court would affect others on the registry whose reporting requirement was retroactively lengthened by a 2011 amendment to Kansas Offender Registration Act, or KORA.

Christopher M. Joseph, the Topeka attorney representing the Lenexa man, said a ruling by the high court could affect thousands of people. His client isn't named in court documents.

"If the Supreme Court affirms the trial court's decision, the KBI will be forced to reduce the registration periods for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of registrants whose constitutional rights are also being violated," Joseph said Thursday in an email to The Associated Press.

The state law requires people convicted of certain sex, drug and violent crimes to register with law enforcement for between 15 years and life, depending on the severity of the crime. Kansas has 11,114 people now listed on the registry: 6,706 for sex crimes; 2,189 for drug offenses; and 2,219 for violent crimes, the KBI said Thursday.

The man at the center of the lawsuit pleaded guilty in 2003 to having indecent liberties with a child/touching in Johnson County. At the time, he was required to remain on the registry for 10 years.

But the Legislature amended the law in 2011, extending the length of time such offenders must be registered to 25 years. The state then told the man, now a married father, that the law applied retroactively — meaning he had to remain registered until 2028.

Hendricks concluded the law was punitive, meaning it was a punishment that couldn't be retroactively enforced per the U.S. Constitution. The judge noted that the law requires offenders to register in person four times a year, pay a $20 fee each time and face a felony for failing to register.

In the state's appeal, Assistant Attorney General Christopher Grunewald argued the law wasn't punitive, but rather a law to protect the public. He said the penalty for failing to register was to ensure compliance not impose a punishment.

"Sex offenses are repugnant, and the risk of sex offense recidivism remains high — the Legislature chose to make sex offender registration a top priority," Grunewald wrote in the appeal. "The choice does not represent a judgment that registration is punitive, only that compliance is a paramount goal."

The state also argued that the judge erred in refusing to throw out affidavits from the man and his wife that recounted how their children would come home crying after being teased at school, after being told their father was a "bad man," ''pervert" or "pedophile." The state contends most of that was hearsay, because the father had no personal knowledge of what his children's classmates told them.

The state's appeal also contends that the judge should not have considered research journals citing studies that confirmed offender registries cause significant employment and housing disadvantages.

Kansas also defended the public notification requirements. The law requires a notation of "RO" to be placed on the driver's licenses of a registered offender, which the district court called a "visible badge of criminality." It also requires law enforcement to notify the public about sex offenders in their vicinity, which the state contended advances the legitimate non-punitive purpose of public safety.

In addition, the appeal asked the Supreme Court to allow the man's name to be released, saying the public has an interest in knowing the identity of the person challenging a law that requires him to register as a sex offender.

Joseph, the man's attorney, objected.

"The apparent objective is to force Mr. Doe to dismiss his case in order to protect his family from renewed threats of violence and his property from further vandalism," the lawyer said. "It is sad that our Attorney General has resorted to such a tactic." ..Source.. by ROXANA HEGEMAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge to attorneys: Watch your words when picking jurors in sex exploitation case

12-18-2013 Kansas:

When picking 12 jurors to decide whether photographs of naked youngsters younger than 18 are against the law, can a prosecutor ask prospective jurors their feelings about child pornography?

During the trial of Jason W. Hachmeister, the challenge for attorneys will be to pick their words very carefully when talking about sex, talking about children and putting the two together in photographs.

Starting Monday, Jason W. Hachmeister, 39, of Topeka, faces trial on more than 100 counts of sexual exploitation of a child. Shawnee County District Court Judge Evelyn Wilson will hear the case.

During a motion hearing this week, assistant district attorney Veronica Dersch said she should be able to ask prospective jurors their feelings about child pornography. She also wanted to use the words during opening statements.

Defense attorney Jim Chappas said Dersch was asking to be able to do in jury selection what Wilson said attorneys couldn't do later during the trial.

Chappas opposed using the words "child pornography" in jury selection or during the trial.

In a motion filed Oct. 22, Chappas opposed allowing the prosecutor to use "child porn" or "child pornography" in jury selection or during the trial because it "can only unduly and unfairly prejudice this defendant's right to a fair trial."

Wilson noted that the name of the crime isn’t even "possession of child pornography."

The Kansas statute is called "sexual exploitation of a child." In this case, the statute refers to "possessing any visual depiction of a child under 18 years of age shown or heard engaging in sexually explicit conduct with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires or appeal to the prurient interest of the offender or any other person."

Sexual exploitation of a child sometimes is described in jury instructions in words "we don't use very often," Wilson said.

"Prurient interest. When was the last time you used that outside the courtroom?" Wilson said. "But it is used in the description of this crime."

Wilson ruled that prosecution and defense attorneys "need to stay away from" the words "child pornography" and "child porn."

But "it is not going to automatically generate a mistrial if someone brings it up," Wilson said.

The judge later admonished the attorneys to not use the two phrases and ordered attorneys to tell any witnesses they call to testify to not use the phrases.

If there is some reason for the witness to use it, the judge wants to know about it beforehand, Wilson said.

Sexual exploitation of a child is a person felony, in which the penalty falls in the border box section of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines if the defendant has no criminal history or no more than two or more misdemeanor convictions.

In a border box sentencing, the judge has the choice to place the defendant on probation or sentence him to prison for 31 months to 38 months per conviction.

On Wednesday, Wilson also denied a defense motion seeking to postpone the trial. The case, which was filed in 2012, already had been continued four times.

Chappas and Mark Bennett, attorney representing Hachmeister on a charge that he killed his mother in 2011, urged the judge to postpone the sex case so that it would be tried after the homicide case.

But the judge said she hadn't heard any reason, to her satisfaction, to continue the case.

In court records, Hachmeister said a police detective armed with a search warrant was examining the defendant's computer and expanded his search from terms dealing with a homicide to terms indicative of child pornography.

Photographs of children in alleged sexual situations were found on a personal computer owned by Hachmeister when investigators were looking into the killing of his mother, witnesses earlier testified.

Hachmeister's homicide trial before District Court Judge Richard Anderson is to start Jan. 21, 2014.

In the slaying case, Hachmeister was arrested Dec. 16, 2011, on a warrant charging him with premeditated first-degree murder in the September 2011 killing of Sheila Hachmeister, 58, at her home at 3520 S.W. Belle.

She was found dead shortly after 5 p.m. Sept. 10, 2011, when police responded to a medical call at her home. A call to police was made by Jason Hachmeister, who lived at the S.W. Belle address with his mother.

The victim’s body bore dozens of cuts, but she was strangled to death, a witness testified. ..Source.. by Steve Fry

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge fires 34-year court veteran for helping man wrongfully convicted of rape

7-29-2013 Kansas:

A Kansas City man freed from prison three decades after being wrongfully convicted of rape considers Sharon Snyder his “angel” for giving him a public document that showed him how to properly seek DNA tests. A Jackson County Circuit judge considers the 34-year court employee an insubordinate for offering legal advice and being too chatty about courthouse matters.

Sharon Snyder, a 70-year-old great-grandmother who was fired nine months before she was scheduled to retire, sees herself somewhere in the middle and insists she would provide the same help if she had a chance to do it again.

Robert Nelson, 49, was convicted in 1984 of a Kansas City rape that he insisted he didn’t commit and sentenced to 50 years for forcible rape, five years for forcible sodomy and 15 years for first-degree robbery. The judge ordered the sentence to start after he finished serving time for robbery convictions in two unrelated cases prior to the rape conviction.

Those sentences ended in 2006.

In August 2009, Nelson filed a motion seeking DNA testing that had not been available at his trial 25 years earlier, but Jackson County Circuit Judge David Byrn denied the request. Two years later Nelson asked the judge to reconsider, but again Byrn rejected the motion because it fell short of what was required under the statute Nelson had cited. ..continued.. by Mark Godsey

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kansas appealing in sex offender registry ruling

7-27-2013 Kansas:

WICHITA -- Kansas will appeal a state district court judge's decision that orders a child molester's name to be removed from its offender registry after finding the registration laws violate the U.S. Constitution, the state's top prosecutor said Thursday.

At issue is Tuesday's decision in which Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks found that Kansas law ostracizes offenders and requires them to remain registered longer than necessary. But, his ruling applied only to the 50-year-old Lenexa man who sued the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and Johnson County sheriff's office seeking to end his registration requirement.

"After carefully reviewing the district court's ruling, we do not think it is legally correct," Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said Thursday in a written statement.

Kirk Ridgway, the attorney representing the Johnson County sheriff's office, said one of their concerns when considering whether to appeal was that any Kansas Supreme Court ruling would apply to others currently on the registry.

Schmidt said the state would fight for the integrity of the Kansas Offender Registration Act, as well as for continued compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act, which is designed to protect the public, particularly children, from sex offenders.

"Having complete and accurate information about registered sex offenders available to the public through the online registry is a central public safety purpose of the federal law, which Kansas has implemented, and the district court's ruling runs counter to that purpose," Schmidt said.

The Kansas offender registry law requires sex, drug and violent offenders to register with law enforcement. It applies retroactively and offenders must register for 15 years to life, depending on the severity of the crime. Nearly 11,600 persons are on the registry, according to the KBI -- 7,417 for sex crimes, 2,283 for drug offenses and 1,899 for violent crimes.

Kansas will also appeal the lower court's decision that allowed the plaintiff to proceed anonymously in the case. The plaintiff's attorney has said his client is fearful of retribution if he is identified.

"The public has a right to know when a convicted sex offender challenges the very law that is designed to protect the public," Schmidt said. "This cloak of anonymity does not serve the public interest or advance public safety."

The plaintiff pleaded guilty in 2003 to having taken indecent liberties with a child/touching in Johnson County. At the time, he was required to remain on the registry for 10 years. But in 2011, the Legislature amended the law, extending the length of time offenders must be registered to 25 years.

The state told the plaintiff it applied retroactively and that he had to remain registered until 2028.

His lawsuit argued the law is unconstitutional because it was applied retroactively, violating the "ex post facto" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Attorney Chris Joseph, who represented the plaintiff, argued several state supreme courts have found provisions in registry laws as excessive in relation to public safety objectives. He cited registry provisions struck down by state supreme courts in Alaska, Indiana, and Ohio.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected in 2003 a similar retroactive challenge to Alaska's registration law, finding at the time it was constitutional as a civil regulatory scheme. But the nation's highest court also said that if a retroactive law is punitive, then it would be unconstitutional.

Hendricks said the 2011 Kansas law was effectively punitive, noting its requirements have become increasingly severe and social media creates a virtual forum for "shaming." ..Source.. by ROXANA HEGEMAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Not all are child molesters

7-26-2013 Kansas:

If you and your young children were moving into a new neighborhood, would you want to know that one of your neighbors was a sex offender?

No doubt.

Would it matter if that person's offense was 25 years ago and they'd lived a model life since their release? How about if their offense didn't involve a sexual act, but perhaps involved looking at child porn or having underage sex?

There aren't always easy answers to such questions. But the questions matter after a Shawnee County judge overturned an extension of the state's Offender Registration Act.

Previously, the state required offenders to register for 10 years. But in 2011, the Legislature extended that to 25 years. The law was challenged by a man who pleaded to a charge of indecent liberties with a child (touching), according to a story in the Topeka Capital. His name was due to drop off the registry in 2013.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, during a visit to Salina on Tuesday, said the issue is whether extending the time a person remains on the registry is seen as a punishment, which is how the judge viewed it, or whether it's seen as a way to inform the public, which is the state's position.

Although the ruling applies only to the Johnson County man who appealed the case, it has wider implications for the state. Schmidt noted that millions of dollars in federal grants might go away if the state were not able to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, which is what prompted the state to extend the longer times people spend on the registry.

In his ruling, Shawnee County District Court Judge Larry Hendricks said he understood this is an emotional issue for anyone with children, grandchildren or other relatives. But those on the registry also have family members who are affected, he said.

The problem is that when those convicted of child sexual offenses reoffend, the consequences are much greater than that of, say, a thief or drug user. Therefore, the greatest of care must be taken to protect the public.

That's obvious. What's not is at what point does it become counterproductive to keep someone on a sex offender list? Again, not everyone is a child molester. ..Source.. by Ben Wearing

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge overturns 15-year extension of sex offender's registration time

Case is being appealed

7-17-2013 Kansas:

Citing the U.S. Constitution forbidding more punishment for a crime already resolved, a Shawnee County District Court judge has ordered two law enforcement agencies to terminate a man's additional 15-year offender registration requirement.

In addition, District Judge Larry Hendricks ordered the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and the Johnson County Sheriff's Office to "immediately delete" all information required by the Kansas Offender Registration Act that is publicly displayed about the man.

"I'm pleased with the ruling," Chris Joseph, the offender’s attorney, said Tuesday. "I think it's dead-on right with the law. Registration is clearly punishment, clearly punitive. When you change the rules after the fact, it's an ex post facto violation."

The registered offender was identified in district court records only as "John Doe." Doe sued KBI director Kirk Thompson and Johnson County Sheriff Frank Denning.

As for Doe's reaction to the ruling, "he's very excited that he may be able to live a normal life in the near future," Joseph said.

Kirk T. Ridgway, an Overland Park attorney representing Denning, said Tuesday, "We're reviewing the opinion and have no comment at this time."

Assistant attorney general Christopher Grunewald, one of two attorneys representing Thompson, said he hadn't received the Doe ruling.

Joseph said he "has no doubt" the KBI and Johnson County Sheriff's Office will appeal Hendricks’ ruling. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of offenders, who are affected by the increased registration statute, Joseph said.

The Hendricks ruling isn't binding on other district court judges faced by the same set of circumstances.

But if the ruling is appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court and if that court would uphold the ruling, the KBI would have to remove everyone from its offender registry who had completed their original 10-year registration, Joseph said.

The offender registration of Doe stems from his guilty plea on Feb. 19, 2003, to a charge of indecent liberties with a child (touching). He was ordered to register as a sex offender for 10 years until 2013.

But the Kansas Legislature amended the Kansas Offender Registration Act in 2011 to require offenders convicted of indecent liberties to register for 25 years, the Hendricks decision said.

Doe filed the lawsuit on Feb. 15, 2012, asking that Hendricks find Thompson and Denning couldn't enforce the 25-year registration period against Doe "because it violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution."

Hendricks agreed.

Provisions of the offender registration statute "have become oppressive to the point of punishment," Hendricks said in his 29-page ruling. "Therefore, the KORA's retroactive application assigns a new punitive measure to a crime already consummated, in violation of the ex post facto clause."

According to the 2011 statute, Doe was required by the Kansas statute to:

■ Register for 25 years until 2028.

■ Report in person four times a year in each jurisdiction he would live in, work or attend school, a potential total of 12 times a year.

■ Pay a $20 reporting fee each time and have his photograph taken.

■ Register within three days of changing residence, job or school.

■ Provide his address, phone numbers, vehicle, boat and aircraft information, professional licenses, palm prints, email address, online identities, membership in online social networks, and travel and immigration documents.

■ Notify law enforcement officers of any plans for international travel.

■ Face a potential conviction of a person felony for each violation of the law.

In affidavits, Doe and his wife said negative impacts of the offender registration law included concern that people who see his registered offender number on his driver's license, then deny him services or discriminate against him, loss of a job, landlords wouldn't rent to him, suffer a "strong sense of shame" and hopelessness, vandalism to his home, shunning of the offender's family, and impact of the registration on their children.

In opposing the lawsuit, Thompson and Denning contended the Kansas statute blocked Doe from being granted a court order relieving him from registering. The defendants also cited a U.S. Supreme Court case which upheld provisions of a retroactive Alaska offender registration law.

Hendricks said the Kansas statute was "significantly different" from Alaska’s.

Hendricks concluded the Kansas Offender Registration Act "is effectively punitive" and "is excessive in relation to its alleged purpose of protecting public safety. These provisions have become oppressive to the point of punishment. Therefore, the KORA's retroactive application assigns a new punitive measure to a crime already consummated in violation of the ex post facto clause." ..Source.. by Steve Fry (See also HERE)

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kansas authorities to appeal ruling ordering sex offender's name to be removed from registry

See earlier report HERE

7-18-2013 Kansas:

Kansas will appeal a state district court judge's decision that orders a child molester's name to be removed from its offender registry after finding the registration laws violate the U.S. Constitution, the state's top prosecutor said Thursday.

At issue is Tuesday's decision in which Shawnee County Judge Larry Hendricks found that Kansas law ostracizes offenders and requires them to remain registered longer than necessary. But, his ruling applied only to the 50-year-old Lenexa man who sued the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and Johnson County sheriff's office seeking to end his registration requirement.

"After carefully reviewing the district court's ruling, we do not think it is legally correct," Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said Thursday in a written statement.

Kirk Ridgway, the attorney representing the Johnson County sheriff's office, said one of their concerns when considering whether to appeal was that any Kansas Supreme Court ruling would apply to others currently on the registry.

Schmidt said the state would fight for the integrity of the Kansas Offender Registration Act, as well as for continued compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act, which is designed to protect the public, particularly children, from sex offenders.

"Having complete and accurate information about registered sex offenders available to the public through the online registry is a central public safety purpose of the federal law, which Kansas has implemented, and the district court's ruling runs counter to that purpose," Schmidt said.

The Kansas offender registry law requires sex, drug and violent offenders to register with law enforcement. It applies retroactively and offenders must register for 15 years to life, depending on the severity of the crime. Nearly 11,600 persons are on the registry, according to the KBI — 7,417 for sex crimes, 2,283 for drug offenses and 1,899 for violent crimes.

Kansas will also appeal the lower court's decision that allowed the plaintiff to proceed anonymously in the case. The plaintiff's attorney, Chris Joseph, has said his client is fearful of retribution if he is identified.

"The public has a right to know when a convicted sex offender challenges the very law that is designed to protect the public," Schmidt said. "This cloak of anonymity does not serve the public interest or advance public safety."

Joseph said in an email Thursday that he welcomed an appeal, but was concerned about the attorney general's request to reveal his client's identity.

"The only purpose for doing so, that I can think of, is to attempt to intimidate him and discourage his effort to protect his constitutional rights," Joseph said. "I am disheartened that our Attorney General would resort to such tactics."

The plaintiff pleaded guilty in 2003 to having taken indecent liberties with a child/touching in Johnson County. At the time, he was required to remain on the registry for 10 years. But in 2011, the Legislature amended the law, extending the length of time offenders must be registered to 25 years.

The state told the plaintiff it applied retroactively and that he had to remain registered until 2028.

His lawsuit argued the law is unconstitutional because it was applied retroactively, violating the "ex post facto" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Attorney, who represented the plaintiff, argued several state supreme courts have found provisions in registry laws as excessive in relation to public safety objectives. He cited registry provisions struck down by state supreme courts in Alaska, Indiana, and Ohio.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected in 2003 a similar retroactive challenge to Alaska's registration law, finding at the time it was constitutional as a civil regulatory scheme. But the nation's highest court also said that if a retroactive law is punitive, then it would be unconstitutional.

Hendricks said the 2011 Kansas law was effectively punitive, noting its requirements have become increasingly severe and social media creates a virtual forum for "shaming." ..Source.. by ROXANA HEGEMAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court's landmark decision closes loophole in child sex crime cases

6-1-2013 Kansas:

The Kansas Supreme Court has upheld a conviction of a man accused of child sex crimes. It's a landmark decision that will close a loophole in prosecuting sex offenders.

A jury convicted then 38-year-old John Prine of rape, aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties with a child in 2004. Investigators said the crimes occurred in December 2003, and involved a 6-year-old girl he was babysat.

Prine appealed the conviction, and was ordered a new trial after the court ruled that the evidence of the prior sex crimes against children was erroneously admitted at Prine's jury trial.

Kansas lawmakers adopted Senate Bill 44 after the Kansas Supreme Court reversed Prine's conviction in April of 2009. The measure was signed into law, allowing evidence of prior sex crimes to be admitted at the trial of someone charged with committing a sex crime against a child. Prine was then retried later that year using the same evidence and was again found guilty of rape, aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties with a child.

Prine appealed his second conviction to the Kansas Court of Appeals. The case was transferred to the Kansas Supreme Court, with oral arguments presented on August 29, 2012.

The court upheld Friday that the amendment did not violate the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. Under the new law, the Court recognized that evidence of prior sex crimes committed by a defendant may be admissible at a trial to prove the propensity of a criminal defendant to commit the charged crime or crimes for sex crime prosecutions.

Prine remains jailed on his 32-year prison sentence. He is expected to be released in 2031. ..Source.. by Jessica Reber

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Park bench is not a new residence

12-10-2012 Kansas:

Meryl Carver-Allmond won in State v. LeClair, No. 101,201 (Oct. 26, 2012), reversing a Saline County failure to register conviction.  Mr. LeClair, who was required to register within 10 days of changing his residence, "left his Salina residence on June 1, 2007.

He then traveled the southwest United States for approximately 3 weeks before settling in Las Vegas, Nevada, and registering as an offender on July 9." Mr. LeClair argued that he had not established a new residence during that period and, therefore, was not required to notify the sheriff.  The KSC agreed:

There is no inconsistency or repugnancy because the statute distinctly requires that once the offender "changes the address of the person's residence," the offender must register within 10 days of obtaining "the new address" of residence. (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 22-2904(b). So we must reject the State's contention at oral argument that LeClair's "address of residence" could be a one-night stay on a park bench. Among other things, it is difficult to imagine how under 22-4904(b) an offender should inform law enforcement of his "new [residential] address" as a "park bench in Albuquerque."

And it is equally difficult to imagine how that park bench for one night establishes a "change [in] the address of the person's residence." Consequently, we conclude that under K.S.A. 22-4904(b), an offender does not change the address of residence until obtaining a new place of habitation where the person intends to remain. This conclusion necessarily rejects the panel's holding that under this statute an address of residence simply means one's bodily presence at a location.

Given this construction of the statute, and given the unrefuted evidence that Mr. LeClair had not established a new residence, the KSC reversed the conviction due to insufficient evidence. ..Source.. by Kansas Defenders blog

Full Decision HERE: http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/Opinions/SupCt/2012/20121026/101201.pdf

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Missouri judge throws out 1983 murder conviction

11-3-2012 Missouri:

A Missouri judge has thrown out the 1983 rape and murder convictions of a St. Louis-area man who case was taken up by nonprofit group that specializes in using DNA evidence to overturn wrongful convictions.

Cole County Circuit Judge Dan Green on Friday ordered 56-year-old George Allen Jr. released from prison within 10 days unless the St. Louis circuit attorney decides to retry him. That office was closed Friday night, but Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce worked with the Innocence Project on the DNA testing.

The judge's written findings of fact in the case were not available Friday night.

Allen, a diagnosed schizophrenic who is 29 years into a 95-year sentence, was accused of raping and killing 31-year-old Mary Bell after breaking into her St. Louis home. The crime occurred about 10 miles from Allen's University City home during a historic snowstorm on Feb. 4, 1982.

Lawyers with The Innocence Project took up Allen's case in 2010, arguing that police coached Allen into confessing. They said Allen was cleared by the results of DNA tests not available in the early 1980s and other forensic evidence not shared with Allen's trial lawyers.

Allen was arrested about a month after Bell's murder, when officers mistook him for a convicted sex offender who police had suspected and took him in for questioning. Police said he confessed, and lab tests done then could not exclude Allen as the source of semen found on Bell's robe.

But police and lab documents that weren't disclosed at trial showed that police found semen samples from two different men on the robe, and more sophisticated DNA tests completed last year ruled out Allen as the source of either, according to Olga Akselrod, an attorney for the New York-based Innocence Project.

“What we've documented is powerful proof that George Allen did not commit this crime,” Akselrod told The Associated Press in an interview last year.

Along with filing a petition for habeus corpus on Allen's behalf, attorneys asked Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster to review the new information. But Koster said in a filing earlier this year that the new evidence was not enough to prove Allen's innocence.

Allen's supporters had argued it would have been impossible for him to walk 10 miles in a blinding snowstorm to a stranger's home, then rape and kill her. Allen's mother, Lonzetta Taylor, said last year he was home with her when Bell was killed.

Allen said in the recorded confession that he was under the influence of alcohol. Akselrod said the interrogating officer often prompted Allen to give answers to fit the crime, even asking Allen at times to change his answers.

The Innocence Project also said it unearthed documents showing police had evidence that the attacker had a blood type inconsistent with Allen's but failed to tell prosecutors or defense attorneys.

Allen's original trial ended in a hung jury. He was convicted in a second trial in 1983. While in prison, he was blinded in one eye by another inmate, said Tom Block, an activist and prison lay minister who first contacted the Innocence Project about Allen. ..Source.. by Kansas City Star

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kansas Law Treats Sex Offenders Too Harshly

7-11-2012 Kansas:

"Even murderers are not treated so harshly" as Kansas handles recidivist sex offenders, the state appeals court ruled, striking down a law that would impose a life sentence on a sex offender who committed a subsequent felony.

Daniel Proctor was a teenager when he had multiple sexual encounters with 12-year-old T.C. while staying with the boy's family in 2009.

"Proctor apparently cajoled T.C. into having manual and oral contact with Proctor's penis," according to the court. "Proctor also had manual contact with T.C.'s penis, behind, and anus."

Daniel Proctor pleaded guilty in 2010 to aggravated indecent solicitation of a child, and lewd and lascivious behavior. The 19-year-old had no prior criminal history, and had indeed been the victim of sexual abuse some years earlier, so a judge in Saline County sentenced Proctor to 44 months probation, with prison time suspended.

Proctor entered a treatment program and faced lifetime postrelease supervision if he violated probation.

Commission of a crime on postrelease supervision would qualify Proctor for life sentence without parole.

After the judge rejected Proctor's constitutional challenge to find the lifetime postrelease supervision statute, the Kansas Court of Appeals found that law constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The court noted that the case is unusual because of its hypothetical nature.

"The thrust of Proctor's argument for unconstitutionality, however, goes to the mandatory life-without-parole penalty that would accompany a conviction for a new felony," Judge G. Gordon Atcheson wrote for a three-judge panel.

Since Proctor would not have a certain procedural path to challenge the law "at a juncture when the essential historical facts will have become fixed rather than conjectural," the court proceeded under the assumption that Proctor violated his probation with some noncriminal action, such as drinking alcohol.

Assuming that the district court then ordered Proctor to serve his 44-month sentence, the court then hypothesized what would happen if Proctor later committed and pleaded guilty to a low-level felony, such as shoplifting a $1,100 ring, or writing a bad check.

"Although Proctor would be in line for probation on the bad check charge, the violation of his postrelease supervision would mandate his return to prison for the rest of his life - conservatively, some 25 to 30 years," Atcheson wrote.

By combining two offenses that individually permit probation, the structure imposes lifetime incarceration without possible release, according to the court. "The United States Supreme Court has never upheld that sort of recidivist sentencing scheme," Atcheson wrote.

"The deviation between the customary punishment the legislature has adopted and the result here seems, at least on its face, startlingly anomalous," he added. "A defendant first committing a sexually based person felony and later a low-level nonperson felony, such as theft or forgery, may not be deserving of praise, but the conduct reflects a de-escalation of criminality and antisocial behavior. Why that should result in life behind bars begs an obvious explanation, particularly when the reverse behavior does not have anywhere near the same penal consequences."

Even accounting for the sexual nature of Procter's first crime does not warrant the punishment at hand, according to the court.

"Escalating punishment for repeat sex offenders culminating in life in prison reflects an orderly and understandable penological response to a serious social and criminal problem," Atcheson wrote. "But imposing the same sentence - the second harshest possible - for a single sex offense followed by any felony conviction looks to be unfocused, especially operating simultaneously with the recidivist statutes targeting repeat sex offenders."

Atcheson noted that "even murderers are not treated so harshly. A person committing successive second-degree murders could be released and then commit a low-level felony without spending the rest of his or her life in prison."

"We, therefore, find lifetime postrelease supervision as applied to Proctor to be cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth Amendment," he concluded.

The decision comes on the heels of a important finding from the Supreme Court involving mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile murderers. A close majority held last month that such sentences constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. ..Source.. by JACK BOUBOUSHIAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...