State v. Cusick, 122416

Defendant Gene A. Cusick pled guilty to two off-grid felonies: aggravated indecent liberties with a child, based on reports from two separate victims aged about 10–11.
Cusick moved for a downward durational departure under Jessica’s Law to impose a grid sentence instead of the mandatory minimum life term.
He asserted mitigating factors: acceptance of responsibility (guilty plea), waiving a preliminary hearing (spared victims’ trauma), willingness to serve prison, availability of community treatment programs, employability, and significant health issues (possible cancerous colon/lung spots and a severe hernia).
The State opposed, emphasizing multiple victims, separate incidents, evidence of grooming/sexual interest (children’s clothing collection, inappropriate skating-rink relationship, tattoo of a child’s name), and Cusick’s initial denial.
The sentencing court denied departure and imposed two concurrent life sentences with no parole for 25 years (sentence entered December 2019).
On appeal, the court affirmed, holding the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion because Cusick’s mitigating circumstances did not rise to substantial and compelling reasons to depart.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by denying a durational departure from Jessica’s Law mandatory minimum	Cusick: mitigating factors (no criminal history; acceptance of responsibility; waived prelim; community treatment available; serious health issues) together are substantial and compelling	State: multiple victims and separate incidents; evidence of sexual interest/grooming; Cusick first denied responsibility; health/treatment and COVID risk not sufficiently compelling	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion. A reasonable court could find the proffered mitigators were not substantial and compelling; no error of law or fact

State v. Powell, 308 Kan. 895 (2018) (explains abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing and defines "substantial and compelling" mitigating reasons)
State v. Jolly, 301 Kan. 313 (2015) (describes the two-step inquiry for reviewing mitigating circumstances for departures)