State v. Cameron
281 P.3d 143
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Cameron pled guilty to three counts of aggravated indecent solicitation of a child under K.S.A. 21-3511(a).
- He was a 45-year-old stepgrandfather to a 12-year-old victim and admitted to drinking heavily during the events.
- The plea contemplated 24 months of postrelease supervision, but the district court determined lifetime postrelease supervision was mandated by K.S.A. 22-3717(d)(1)(G) for sexually violent offenders.
- Cameron chose not to withdraw his plea and moved for a downward departure and for relief on constitutional grounds.
- The district court rejected the motion for departure and declined to find the sentence unconstitutional under Freeman and related standards.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of Kansas held that lifetime postrelease supervision is not unconstitutional and was correctly imposed under the statute, affirming the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does lifetime postrelease supervision violate § 9? | Cameron argues it is cruel/unusual punishment and disproportionate to the crime. | State contends the sentence is constitutional and supported by Freeman factors. | Not unconstitutional under § 9 |
| Is the sentence proportionate under the Freeman factors? | Lifetime supervision is disproportionate given the offense and offender’s characteristics. | Freeman factors weigh in favor of substantial punishment given crime severity and societal interests. | Not clearly disproportionate; factors support the sentence |
| Is the sentence categorically disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment? | A broader category of offenders might render lifetime supervision unconstitutional. | The category is not narrowly defined enough to violate the Eighth Amendment; one-off cases aside, the sentence stands as lawful. | Not categorically disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment |
| Must the district court have applied K.S.A. 22-3717(d)(1)(B) instead of (d)(1)(G)? | The rule of lenity requires the lesser penalty when two provisions may apply. | The more specific provision (G) controls; harmonious reading requires lifetime supervision for sexually violent offenses. | (d)(1)(G) applies; lifetime postrelease supervision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mossman, 294 Kan. 901 (2012) (establishes Freeman-factor framework for constitutional proportionality in postrelease cases)
- Freeman, 223 Kan. 362 (1978) (three-part test for § 9 proportionality under Kansas Constitution)
- State v. Levy, 292 Kan. 379 (2011) (acknowledges Freeman factors and comparative analysis)
- State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666 (2010) (freeman-type proportionality considerations applied)
- State v. Mondragon, 289 Kan. 1158 (2009) (illustrates cross-jurisdictional proportionality comparisons)
- State v. Chavez, 292 Kan. 464 (2011) (parens patriae-style statutory interpretation; in pari materia approach)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 46 (2010) (categorical vs. case-specific proportionality framework for Eighth Amendment)
- Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 (2010) (discusses Graham framework in Kansas context)