State v. Cheeks, 352 P.3d 551

Jerome Cheeks was convicted of second-degree murder in 1993 and sentenced to 15 years to life; convictions and a later sentence-challenge denial were affirmed on appeal.
In March 2009 Cheeks filed a pro se petition under K.S.A. 21-2512 seeking postconviction forensic DNA testing.
The district court initially denied the petition based on a statutory reading limiting DNA testing to first-degree murder or rape convictions; this court later held K.S.A. 21-2512 must be available to similarly situated persons under equal protection in State v. Cheeks (2013).
Cheeks was released on parole in May 2013; the district court denied his petition after hearing, concluding K.S.A. 21-2512 requires the petitioner to be in state custody at the time of the hearing, not merely at filing.
The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding the statute’s wording looks to custody status at the time the petition is filed (present-tense “may petition”), and remanded for merits proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether K.S.A. 21-2512 requires the petitioner to be in state custody at the time the petition is heard or only at filing	Cheeks: custody must be evaluated at time of filing; he was in custody when he filed	State: custody must exist at time of hearing; parole means not eligible	Court: statute focuses on custody at filing; Cheeks was in custody when he filed, so petition may proceed
Whether the statutory language is plain or ambiguous (statutory interpretation)	Cheeks: present-tense phrasing governs and is plain	State: argued intent favored limiting petitions to those in custody at hearing	Court: statute is plain; no need to consult legislative intent; present tense controls
Whether equal protection required extension of the statute to second-degree murder convictions	Cheeks: previously argued and prevailed on equal protection grounds in earlier Cheeks decision	State: (implicit) legislative scheme limited scope	Court: not readdressed here—prior decision extended statute under equal protection and remains binding
Whether relief should be denied despite statutory eligibility	Cheeks: seeks DNA testing on merits	State: opposed eligibility at hearing and merits	Court: reversed denial on procedural/statutory grounds and remanded for merits consideration

State v. Cheeks, 298 Kan. 1, 310 P.3d 346 (Kan. 2013) (extended K.S.A. 21-2512 availability under Equal Protection)
State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 223 P.3d 780 (Kan. 2010) (legislative intent governs statutory construction)
State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 273 P.3d 701 (Kan. 2012) (plain, unambiguous statutes preclude resort to legislative history)
State v. Reese, 300 Kan. 650, 333 P.3d 149 (Kan. 2014) (rule of lenity when criminal statute is ambiguous)
State v. Hobbs, 301 Kan. 203, 340 P.3d 1179 (Kan. 2015) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Thompson, 287 Kan. 238, 200 P.3d 22 (Kan. 2009) (statutory silence or ambiguity construed in defendant's favor)
State v. Cheeks, 258 Kan. 581, 908 P.2d 175 (Kan. 1995) (direct-appeal opinion affirming conviction)
State v. Cheeks, 280 Kan. 373, 121 P.3d 989 (Kan. 2005) (affirming denial of pro se motion to correct illegal sentence)