State v. Cheeks, 298 Kan. 1

Background

Jerome Cheeks was convicted in 1993 of malicious second-degree murder and sentenced pre-KSGA to the indeterminate maximum of 15 years to life.
Years after conviction Cheeks petitioned under K.S.A. 21-2512 for postconviction DNA testing of evidence from the crime scene; the district court denied the petition because the statute expressly permits petitions only for first-degree murder or rape.
Cheeks argued the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause by treating similarly situated prisoners (pre-KSGA life-sentenced first-degree murderers) differently, and separately raised a Fifth Amendment due process claim (the court did not reach the Fifth Amendment issue).
The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed de novo, found Cheeks (narrowly defined: pre-KSGA 15-to-life second-degree murderers) similarly situated to pre-KSGA life-sentenced first-degree murderers, and applied rational-basis review.
The court concluded the State could not offer a rational basis (cost, crime severity, finality) to exclude that narrow class while including first-degree murder and rape, held K.S.A. 21-2512 unconstitutional as applied, and reformed (extended) the statute to include Cheeks’ class, remanding for determination of statutory prerequisites for testing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether K.S.A. 21-2512 violates Equal Protection by allowing DNA petitions for first-degree murder/rape but not for certain second-degree murderers	Cheeks: pre-KSGA offenders sentenced to 15-to-life for second-degree murder are similarly situated to pre-KSGA life-sentenced first-degree murderers and exclusion lacks rational basis	State: distinctions (elements of crimes, severity, cost, finality) justify limiting statute to first-degree murder and rape; Salas controls	Court: Cheeks’ narrow class is similarly situated; rational-basis review fails because no plausible rational basis explains the exclusion; statute violated Equal Protection and must be reformed to include that class
Proper remedy for an equal protection violation in an underinclusive remedial statute	Cheeks: extend statute to include excluded similarly situated class	State/Dissent: judicial rewrite violates separation of powers; legislature’s omission reflects intent and should lead to nullification or leave policy to legislature	Court: prefer reform/extension rather than nullification given statute’s remedial purpose and legislative history; extended K.S.A. 21-2512 to cover narrowly defined class
Whether the court must address Cheeks’ Fifth Amendment due process claim for DNA testing	Cheeks: independent Fifth Amendment right to testing	State: denial of statutory remedy was correct; other remedies may exist	Court: declined to reach Fifth Amendment because Equal Protection resolution was dispositive
Whether prior precedent (Denney, Salas) forecloses Cheeks’ challenge	Cheeks: Denney supports attacking underinclusiveness; Salas focused on elements and does not control Cheeks’ punishment-based argument	State: Salas rejects similarity between 1st and 2d degree murder	Court: Salas does not control because Cheeks framed similarity around sentence (punishment) not crime elements; Denney supports rejecting severity/cost rationales

Key Cases Cited

State v. Denney, 278 Kan. 643 (2004) (statute permitting postconviction DNA testing for rape but not aggravated sodomy violated Equal Protection; crime severity and cost were not rational bases)
State v. Salas, 289 Kan. 245 (2009) (distinguishing first- and second-degree murder based on premeditation for purposes of an Equal Protection challenge focused on crime elements)
State v. Cheeks, 258 Kan. 581 (1995) (prior appellate decision affirming conviction)
State v. Cheeks, 280 Kan. 373 (2005) (motion to correct illegal sentence rejected)
Downtown Bar & Grill v. State, 294 Kan. 188 (2012) (standard for de novo review and Equal Protection three-step framework)
Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (Equal Protection requires similarly situated persons be treated alike)
State v. Limon, 280 Kan. 275 (2005) (discussing limits on judicial rewriting of statutes when contrary to legislative intent)
State v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520 (2004) (court nullified statute rather than rewrite when legislative history showed clear contrary intent)
Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728 (1984) (federal preference for extending remedial statutes rather than striking them when equal protection underinclusiveness exists)
District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (no freestanding constitutional right to postconviction access to DNA testing; legislatures have primary role)