State v. Kinney

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 44752 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2018 Opinion No. 16 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: April 3, 2018 ) v. ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk ) ROBERT JOHNSON KINNEY, ) ) Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Richard S. Christensen, District Judge. Order denying motion to dismiss and judgment of conviction, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Ted S. Tollefson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ HUSKEY, Judge Robert Johnson Kinney appeals from his judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of sexual battery of a minor. Kinney argues the district court erred when it failed to dismiss the sexual battery charge on proportionality grounds. We affirm the district court’s finding that the Idaho’s Sex Offender Registration Act does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore affirm the district court’s order denying Kinney’s motion to dismiss and judgment of conviction. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Kinney was arrested and charged with felony sexual battery of a minor, Idaho Code § 18- 1508A. Kinney filed three motions to dismiss: (1) a motion to dismiss on equal protection grounds; (2) a motion to dismiss on substantive due process grounds; and (3) a motion to dismiss on proportionality grounds. The district court held a hearing on Kinney’s three motions. After 1 hearing arguments from both parties, the district court entered a memorandum decision and order which denied all three motions. On appeal, Kinney does not challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss on equal protection grounds or his motion to dismiss on substantive due process grounds. With regard to Kinney’s motion to dismiss on proportionality grounds, the district court relied on two sources: (1) the legislative intent within Idaho’s Sex Offender Registration Act; and (2) Idaho case law, particularly the Idaho Supreme Court decision in State v. Joslin, 145 Idaho 75, 175 P.3d 764 (2007). The district court concluded: “The doctrine of stare decisis leads this Court to hold that Idaho’s Sex Offender Registry is remedial rather than punitive. Therefore, Defendant’s argument that the State’s Sex Offender Registry requirement violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment must fail.” The case proceeded to trial where the jury found Kinney guilty of sexual battery of a minor. Prior to sentencing, Kinney filed a motion to reconsider the motion to dismiss on proportionality grounds. Kinney argued there was a possibility that a motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds is not ripe for adjudication until there is a conviction. Kinney also argued Idaho should adopt the reasoning of Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016), an opinion which determined the Michigan sex-offender registry law was unconstitutional. Before ruling on the motion to reconsider, the district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years, ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals