State v. Craddick
311 P.3d 1157
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Craddick threatened two victims with a Ruger Airhawk pellet rifle and was charged with attempted aggravated assault on two counts; he pled no contest with the preliminary hearing facts adopted as the plea basis.
- PSI recommended applying K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-6804(h), which presumes imprisonment when a person felony is committed with a firearm; the State agreed the weapon was a Ruger Airhawk pellet rifle.
- Craddick objected, arguing the pellet rifle is not a "firearm" under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5111(m), which defines a firearm as a weapon designed or having the capacity to propel a projectile by force of an explosion or combustion.
- The district court found Craddick used a firearm and imposed a controlling 11-month prison term; Craddick appealed the sentencing designation.
- The appellate court considered prior Kansas decisions and statutory language and found no competent evidence that the Ruger Airhawk propels projectiles by explosion or combustion.
- Court held the pellet rifle is not a firearm under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5111(m); Craddick’s sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pellet rifle used by Craddick is a "firearm" under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5111(m) | State: the rifle is a firearm justifying presumptive prison | Craddick: the Airhawk uses air/gas, not explosion/combustion, so it is not a firearm | Pellet rifle is not a "firearm" under §21-5111(m); sentencing designation reversed |
| Whether district court’s firearm finding must be upheld if supported by competent evidence | State: court’s factual finding should stand | Craddick: no competent evidence showed propulsion by explosion/combustion | No competent evidence established explosion/combustion propulsion; finding erroneous |
| Whether prior caselaw (Davis/Fowler) controls interpretation of statutory definition | State: prior cases allowing gas-driven guns as firearms support designation | Craddick: legislature’s later statutory text excludes gas-driven propulsion | Statutory text prevails; statute excludes propulsion by gas absent explosion/combustion |
| Effect of erroneous firearm designation on sentence | State: designation justified presumptive imprisonment | Craddick: designation improperly triggered harsher sentence | Erroneous designation requires vacating sentence and remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 227 Kan. 174 (court adopted definition of firearm as capable of propelling a projectile by explosion, gas, or combustion)
- State v. Fowler, 238 Kan. 213 (pellet gun held a firearm where expert testimony showed CO2 cartridge produced an "explosion"-type release)
- State v. Johnson, 8 Kan. App. 2d 368 (air rifle not a firearm where designed to operate by nonexplosive means)
- State v. Adams, 12 Kan. App. 2d 191 (firearm designation unsupported where evidence did not show how pellets were propelled)
- State v. Mack, 228 Kan. 83 (appellate review standard: sentencing court firearm findings upheld if supported by competent evidence)
- State v. Ardry, 295 Kan. 733 (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)