State v. Beck, 115219

In Sept. 2013 Beck was charged with first-degree premeditated murder (strangulation) and attempted first-degree murder (knife cuts and attempted strangulation of a 15-year-old).
Beck pleaded guilty under a plea agreement where the State agreed to recommend a hard 25 life sentence for murder and the maximum grid sentence for attempted murder, and to recommend the sentences run concurrently (parole eligibility after 25 years).
The district court advised Beck that it was not bound by the plea agreement and could impose consecutive sentences; Beck acknowledged understanding and the pleas were accepted.
At sentencing the court imposed hard 25 life for murder, mis-stated the range for attempted murder and sentenced Beck to 165 months, then declined the State’s recommendation and ordered the sentences to run consecutively.
On resentencing the court corrected the presumptive range (258–285 months) but granted a downward durational departure to reinstate the 165-month sentence for attempted murder; Beck appealed solely arguing the court erred by imposing consecutive sentences contrary to the plea recommendation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by refusing the plea agreement's recommendation that sentences run concurrently	State: plea recommendation not binding; judge may exercise discretion to impose consecutive sentences	Beck: court should have followed the plea recommendation; accepting responsibility and plea benefits justify concurrent sentences	Court: affirmed — plea recommendations are not binding; district court reasonably exercised discretion to impose consecutive sentences

State v. Boley, 279 Kan. 989 (2005) (sentence recommendations in plea bargains are not binding on the trial court)
State v. Mosher, 299 Kan. 1 (2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for review of sentencing decisions)
State v. Looney, 299 Kan. 903 (2014) (Supreme Court jurisdiction for appeals following imposition of life sentences and downward departures)
State v. Baker, 297 Kan. 482 (2013) (acceptance of responsibility and plea benefits do not necessarily override sentencing court's stated reasons for consecutive sentences)
State v. Mattox, 305 Kan. 1015 (2017) (defining abuse-of-discretion standards)
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (recognizing multiple justifications for sentences including incapacitation, deterrence, retribution)