State v. Dillon, 244 P.3d 680

Background

William Dillon was convicted over a decade ago of attempted aggravated indecent solicitation of a child and began sex-offender registration in 2003.
Kansas law (KORA) requires periodic reporting to the sheriff; in 2006 the reporting timeline was tightened to three times per year (birth month and every 4 months).
Dillon failed to report under the enhanced schedule by June 30, 2008 after reporting only in Shawnee County in February 2008.
Dillon pled no contest to failure to report; he sought a shorter sentence or probation due to proportionality concerns and claimed he was unaware of the stricter requirements.
The district court denied departure and imposed the minimum presumptive sentence of 114 months; Dillon appealed seeking proportionality-based relief.
The Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, noting due-process and proportionality concerns and potential miscalculation of criminal history.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review a presumptive sentence.	Dillon argues district court failed to consider proportionality thus warrants appellate review.	State contends presumptive sentences are generally unreviewable on appeal.	Yes; appellate review is available when the district court explicitly refused to consider a required factor.
Whether the district court erred by excluding proportionality from its departure analysis.	Dillon contends proportionality was the basis for a valid departure and must be considered.	State argues proportionality was a legal, not factual, issue and could be treated as proportionality under law.	District court erred by excluding individualized proportionality from its departure analysis.
Whether the due-process failure requires vacating and remanding for resentencing (and potential correction of criminal-history score).	Due-process requires consideration of individualized proportionality; denial requires reversal.	Presumptive sentence remains valid absent explicit error in law, but jurisdiction allows remand for proper consideration.	Remand for resentencing; potential correction of criminal-history score noted.
Whether the Eighth Amendment/cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim was preserved or should be addressed on appeal.	Dillon argued Eighth Amendment disproportionality.	Issue not preserved below; should not be decided on appeal.	Declined to address on the current appeal; remanded for resentencing without deciding the Eighth Amendment issue.
Whether other challenged issues (e.g., stacking of offenses) were preserved or require reversal.	Challenge to stacking and related provisions.	Waived for failure to raise below; exceptions not shown.	Not considered due to waiver; affirmed remand for resentencing.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Haney, 34 Kan. App. 2d 232 (Kan. App. 2d 2005) (guidelines and departure framework; substantial and compelling reasons for departure)
State v. Blackmon, 285 Kan. 719 (Kan. 2008) (departure standards; substantial and compelling reasons; proportionality contextualized)
State v. Cisneros, 42 Kan. App. 2d 376 (Kan. App. 2d 2009) (misstated authority in probation revocation; jurisdictional impact on presumptive sentence)
State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824 (Kan. 2009) (due process in sentencing; jurisdiction to review presumptive sentences when procedures violated)
State v. Graham, 27 Kan. App. 2d 603 (Kan. App. 2d 2000) (presumptive sentence; jurisdictional limits on review)
State v. Koehn, 266 Kan. 10 (Kan. 1998) (district court not required to make explicit findings; standard review of departure)
State v. Pottoroff, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1161 (Kan. App. 2d 2004) (conviction that creates registration obligation cannot be counted toward criminal-history score when sentencing for failure to register)