State v. Castleberry
301 Kan. 170
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Castleberry arranged a controlled meth purchase via a police informant, with two recorded calls and a park meeting in Emporia.
- Foltz funded the buy with $600, and Castleberry handed over methamphetamine to Foltz after the park meeting.
- A high-speed 45-minute Lyon County pursuit followed when officers attempted to stop Castleberry, with speeds up to 120 mph and multiple traffic violations.
- Stop sticks ended the chase; Castleberry was tasered and restrained after resisting officers’ handcuffing attempts.
- Castleberry was charged with multiple offenses, including distribution of methamphetamine and fleeing or eluding, and the district court imposed a 61-month sentence.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; Castleberry sought review raising venue, moving-violation instructions, unanimity, alternative means of distribution, and sentencing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue for unlawful use of a communication facility | Castleberry argues Lyon County venue isn’t proven. | Castleberry contends venue requires defendant’s physical presence in Lyon County. | Venue proper; use occurred where caller located, Lyon County thus proper. |
| Missing moving-violation instruction | Court failed to define moving violations for fleeing/eluding. | Error, but harmless since listed offenses were moving violations. | Not clearly erroneous; sufficient evidence supported the option of reckless driving as a means. |
| Unanimity instruction on obstruction of official duty | Two acts could support conviction; unanimity required. | Acts were a continuous sequence; no multiplicity. | Not a multiple-acts case; no unanimity instruction required. |
| Alternative means in distribution conviction | Defendant argues the distribution statute lists alternative means and requires evidence of all. | Definition signals descriptive circumstances, not separate alternatives; enough evidence supports one means. | Definition provides options within means; sufficient evidence supported reckless driving as a means. |
| Sentencing based on criminal history and Apprendi | Enhanced sentence based on history must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. | Ivory controls; no jury trial on history required. | Sentence enhancement proper; Ivory controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181 (2012) (defines alternative means vs. options within means in sentencing context)
- State v. Foster, 298 Kan. 348 (2013) (alternative means' statutory construction framework)
- State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506 (2012) (preservation rule for jury instructions)
- State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (2002) (Apprendi-type sentencing considerations in Kansas)
- State v. King, 299 Kan. 372 (2014) (framework for multiple acts vs. unanimity analysis)
- State v. De La Torre, 300 Kan. 591 (2014) (three-step unanimity framework for errors)