State v. Chavez, 254 P.3d 539

Chavez pleaded guilty to off-grid aggravated indecent liberties with a child under Jessica's Law and on-grid aggravated indecent liberties with a child, with crimes occurring 2005–2008.
District court denied a departure to an on-grid sentence and imposed 25 years to life off-grid, lifetime parole, and lifetime electronic monitoring, plus a concurrent 100-month on-grid term.
Chavez argued the off-grid sentence should have been 20 years under 22-3717(b)(2) rather than 25 years under 21-4643(a)(1).
The State argued the judge could impose a 25-year minimum under Jessica's Law and that the parole provisions create overlap between 22-3717(b)(2) and (b)(5).
The court held life off-grid sentences are not presumptive and proceeding to review the legality of the sentence is permitted despite no objection at sentencing.
The court ultimately affirmed the 25-year off-grid sentence, vacated lifetime electronic monitoring as a parole condition, and denied departure to on-grid, with no reversal on other grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 25-year minimum applies under Jessica's Law.	Chavez argues 20-year parole eligibility applies per 22-3717(b)(2).	Chavez contends 25-year minimum from 21-4643(a)(1) is not triggered.	Specific statute controls; 25-year minimum applies.
Jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence despite no objection.	Applies unlimited review; parole-related issue is illegal sentence.	Court cannot revise sentence absent objection.	Court has jurisdiction to correct illegal sentence.
Whether the court abused its discretion in denying departure to an on-grid sentence.	Mitigating factors warranted a lesser term.	Rationale supported denial of departure.	No abuse of discretion; departure denied.
Validity of lifetime electronic monitoring as a parole condition.	Parole conditions including electronic monitoring may be imposed.	Parole conditions cannot be imposed by sentencing courts.	Electronic monitoring vacated.

State v. Ballard, 289 Kan. 1000 (2009) (statutory interpretation and guidelines sentencing framework)
State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157 (2008) (life sentences not presumptive; jurisdiction to review illegal sentence)
State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666 (2010) (illegal sentence correction under 22-3504(1))
State v. Horn, 288 Kan. 690 (2009) (lenity used to resolve legislative inconsistencies in sentencing)
State v. Raschke, 289 Kan. 911 (2009) (in pari materia interpretation; reconcile overlapping provisions)
State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 (2009) (strict construction confined by reasonable interpretation)
State v. Jolly, 291 Kan. 842 (2011) (parole conditions not imposed by sentencing courts)