State v. Adams, 273 P.3d 718

Adams was convicted by jury of six counts related to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine.
A routine traffic stop of Adams' housemate Nelson led to seizure of meth manufacture precursors and a statement implicating Pitcherello.
Police executed a search warrant at Nelson's Protection, Kansas home within hours of the stop and observed meth-related paraphernalia and lab-like conditions.
Adams was identified at the scene, detained, Mirandized, and made statements about manufacturing processes.
State charged six counts, including conspiracy and possession counts. The district court denied Adams' motion to suppress the warrant evidence.
On appeal, the court affirmed, but this discretionary review addresses four issues, including the identical offense sentencing issue which leads to remand for resentencing on the lithium metal count.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause under Franks framework	Adams claims the affidavit had material misrepresentations	State contends no Franks hearing was required; probable cause supported	Probable cause supported; no Franks hearing required
Jury instruction on prior drug use	Instruction improperly prejudices defendant	Instruction proper under Boggs and related cases	Not error; instruction upheld under standard of review
Apprendi/ Ivory issue on prior convictions	Prior convictions used for enhancement violate Apprendi	Kansas law permits using prior convictions for sentencing enhancement	Constitutional; no Apprendi violation; prior convictions permitted
Identical offense sentencing doctrine for lithium metal	Lithium metal count should be governed by 65-7006(a) severity level 2	Elements overlap with 65-4152(a)(3) so sentencing should be level 4	Lithium metal with intent to manufacture is identical to paraphernalia with intent to manufacture; remand to resentence as severity level 4

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (affidavit presumed valid; Franks exception governs suppression)
State v. Landis, 37 Kan.App.2d 409 (Kan. App. 2007) (informant credibility considerations in probable cause)
State v. Boggs, 287 Kan. 298 (Kan. 2008) (prior drug use not automatically admissible under 60-455)
State v. Slater, 267 Kan. 694 (Kan. 1999) (information linking possession with drugs admissible; credibility considered)
State v. Preston, Kan. , 272 P.3d 1275 (Kan. 2012) (prior drug conviction evidence admissible under context)
State v. Snellings, Kan. , 273 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2012) (identical offense sentencing doctrine; lithium/ephedrine overlap)
State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (Kan. 2002) (Apprendi-type considerations for sentencing under prior convictions)
State v. Bennington, 293 Kan. 503 (Kan. 2011) (reaffirmation of use of prior convictions for enhancements)
State v. Riojas, 288 Kan. 379 (Kan. 2009) (Apprendi-type rulings in Kansas)