State v. Corbin, 113585

Background

Nicholas Corbin pled no contest to premeditated first-degree murder of his 3-month-old son and faced a hard 25 life sentence.
Before sentencing Corbin moved under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6622(b) for a court determination whether he is a person with "intellectual disability," which would bar certain mandatory punishments.
The district court reviewed two psychological evaluations (WAIS-IV full scale IQ 95; RIAS showing moderately below average scores) and denied Corbin's motion, relying principally on standardized test results.
After sentencing, the Legislature amended K.S.A. 76-12b01(i) (effective 2016) to allow proof of "significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning" by means in addition to standardized tests and to account for standard error of measurement.
The Kansas Supreme Court considered the amended statute on appeal, assumed without deciding it could be retroactive, and concluded the district court applied the pre-amendment, narrower standard.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, directing the district court to reconsider Corbin's threshold motion under the amended definition (K.S.A. 76-12b01 together with K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6622(b)) and to allow additional evidence if appropriate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred in denying a threshold determination that Corbin may be intellectually disabled under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6622(b)	Corbin: evidence (tests, history, clinician observations) suffices to require an evidentiary hearing; remand under amended statute is needed	State: evidence did not meet the statutory standard then applied; amendment does not change outcome	Court: Reverse and remand — district court must reconsider under the amended K.S.A. 76-12b01 and may permit additional evidence
Proper standard for "significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning"	Corbin: amended statute allows non-test evidence and accounts for test measurement error	State: pre-amendment test-based standard controls the analysis here	Court: Apply current (2016) statutory definition; district court used the old narrow standard, so reconsideration is required
Retroactive application of 2016 amendment to K.S.A. 76-12b01(i)	Corbin: amendment should apply to his pending case and warrant remand	State: did not contest retroactivity; argued outcome unchanged	Court: Assumed retroactivity for purposes of appeal and remanded to apply the amendment
Remedy on appeal	Corbin: request for full hearing under K.S.A. 21-6622(c)	State: denial was proper; no full hearing necessary	Court: Did not order a full hearing; remanded to permit the district court to re-evaluate threshold under current statute and, if warranted, allow additional evidence before deciding whether a full hearing is required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Maestas, 298 Kan. 765 (discussing two-step process under intellectual disability statute)
State v. Shank, 304 Kan. 89 (abuse of discretion standard explanation)
State ex rel. Secretary of SRS v. Bohrer, 286 Kan. 898 (appellate consideration of statutes amended while appeal pending)
State v. Garza, 295 Kan. 326 (appellate court not a finder of fact)