State v. Conrad
297 Kan. 76
Kan.2013Background
- Conrad appeals a 25 years-to-life sentence under Jessica’s Law (K.S.A. 21-4643(a)(l)(C)) and challenges its constitutionality under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution and parole eligibility.
- Conrad pled to three counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and one count of lewd and lascivious behavior; six related counts were dismissed.
- The controlling sentence was 25 years to life based on conduct with his 11-year-old daughter, G.R.C., with additional concurrent sentences for three other child victims.
- Conrad’s offenses included repeated rape of his 11-year-old daughter, and other sexual acts with his stepdaughter and stepson, plus exposure to a third child, under color of trust as a father/stepfather.
- The district court imposed a lifetime post-release supervision term, which the court later vacated as illegal; Conrad argues he should be parole eligible after 20 years.
- The court conducted a Freeman-test analysis and held the 25-to-life sentence is not cruel or unusual and is consistent with Kansas law on parole eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 25-to-life under Jessica’s Law is cruel or unusual punishment. | Conrad argues the sentence shocks the conscience under § 9. | State contends the sentence is proportionate given the crimes and offender. | Not cruel or unusual; constitutional. |
| Parole eligibility after the 25-year term under Jessica’s Law. | Conrad argues ambiguity about parole after 20 vs. 25 years. | State says 25-year term governs parole eligibility for Jessica’s Law. | Conrad must serve 25 years before parole; 20-year provision not controlling. |
| Whether lifetime post-release supervision was imposed or is illegal under Jessica’s Law. | Lifetime post-release supervision was argued to be authorized. | Statutory provisions do not authorize lifetime post-release supervision for Jessica’s Law. | Vacated; lifetime post-release supervision is illegal and is removed. |
| Freeman factors analysis—whether the first, second, or third factor supports the sentence. | Conrad contends the sentence is disproportionate under Freeman. | State argues the court properly weighed the crime, offender, and comparisons. | First Freeman factor weighs in favor of constitutional sentence; second and third factors do not render it unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Woodard, 294 Kan. 717 (2012) (case-specific analysis of Freeman test for Jessica’s Law)
- State v. Britt, 295 Kan. 1018 (2012) (bifurcated standard of review for § 9 challenges)
- State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 (2010) (definition of cruel or unusual punishment under § 9)
- State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362 (1978) (three-factor Freeman test for proportionality)
- State v. Mossman, 294 Kan. 901 (2012) (sex offenses against minors treated as violent even if nonviolent)
- State v. Baptist, 294 Kan. 728 (2012) (parole eligibility after 25 years under Jessica’s Law)
- State v. Cash, 293 Kan. 326 (2011) (parole eligibility under Jessica’s Law consistent with 25-year term)
- State v. Chavez, 292 Kan. 464 (2011) (statutory interpretation of Jessica’s Law parole provisions)
- State v. Seward, 296 Kan. 979 (2013) (third Freeman factor—comparison with other states' offenses)