409 P.3d 862
Kan.2018Background
- On July 9, 2014, Alex W. Brune stabbed Brian Baskind and Clifford Preston to death during a burglary of Baskind's home in Lenexa; Brune was also shot and later called 911 from the house.
- While hospitalized, Brune gave a false story that he had been kidnapped and had killed his attackers in self-defense; investigation tied Brune to the scene (mask, painted airsoft pistol, internet searches about avoiding leaving DNA).
- Brune pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree felony murder; the plea left concurrent-versus-consecutive sentencing open to the court.
- At sentencing, a psychologist testified Brune showed some externalizing behavior and anxiety-related symptoms but was diagnosed with no mental illness; victim impact statements described brutal killings.
- The State requested consecutive sentences; the district court imposed consecutive hard 25 life sentences (effectively 50 years before parole eligibility).
- Brune appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences; because these are off-grid crimes, appellate review of consecutive sentencing is permitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion by imposing consecutive sentences | State: consecutive terms justified by brutality, planning, and circumstances of crimes | Brune: accepted responsibility, showed remorse, sought rehabilitation; consecutive 50-year parole ineligibility is overly harsh | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; judge provided compelling, articulated reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Horn, 302 Kan. 255 (2015) (recognizes sentencing courts’ discretion on concurrent vs. consecutive terms)
- State v. Mosher, 299 Kan. 1 (2014) (KSGA generally bars review of consecutive-sentence discretionary claims, but not for off-grid crimes)
- State v. Baker, 297 Kan. 482 (2013) (acceptance of responsibility and remorse do not necessarily outweigh compelling reasons for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Mattox, 305 Kan. 1015 (2017) (standards for appellate review of alleged abuse of sentencing discretion)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (recognizes multiple legitimate sentencing rationales such as incapacitation, deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation)