State v. Dull, 302 Kan. 32

Background

Bryce M. Dull committed aggravated indecent liberties with a child at age 17 (victim age 13) and, after being certified to adult court, pled to that felony; he also (after turning 18) pled guilty to burglary and misdemeanor theft in a separate case.
District court sentenced: burglary 24 months (with 12 months PRS), misdemeanor concurrent 12 months, and aggravated indecent liberties downwardly departed to 45 months, with mandatory lifetime postrelease supervision (PRS); the sentences were ordered consecutive.
Dull appealed arguing (1) mandatory lifetime PRS for juveniles convicted of aggravated indecent liberties is categorically cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment (and § 9 of the Kansas Constitution, though that claim was not preserved), and (2) the district court abused its discretion by ordering consecutive sentences.
Court of Appeals rejected the Eighth Amendment categorical challenge and held it lacked jurisdiction to review the consecutive-sentence issue; Dull petitioned for review.
Kansas Supreme Court granted review, found it had jurisdiction, held mandatory lifetime PRS is categorically unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment when imposed on juveniles convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, vacated the lifetime PRS portion of Dull’s sentence, and affirmed the district court’s imposition of consecutive sentences.

Issues

Issue	Dull's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether mandatory lifetime postrelease supervision (PRS) for juveniles convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child is categorically cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment	Mandatory lifetime PRS imposed on juveniles of this class is categorically disproportionate and unconstitutional (and requires individualized consideration)	Lifetime PRS is a valid penological tool for public safety, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation; prior Kansas precedent upheld lifetime PRS for adult offenders	Held: Mandatory lifetime PRS for juveniles convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child is categorically unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment; the lifetime PRS portion of Dull’s sentence vacated
Whether the Eighth Amendment categorical challenge could be raised for the first time on appeal / preservation of other constitutional claims	Challenge allowed as a categorical Eighth Amendment claim (legal question not requiring new factual findings); § 9 Kansas claim not preserved	Argued the challenge was an improper collateral attack on an individual presumptive sentence and thus jurisdictionally barred	Held: The Eighth Amendment categorical proportionality claim was properly considered on appeal; Kansas constitutional § 9 claim was not preserved and is not before the Court
Whether the district court abused discretion by ordering consecutive sentences (one presumptive, one departure)	Consecutive sentences were unreasonable given State’s recommendation, guilty plea, and limited criminal history	Court had discretion; because one sentence was a downward durational departure, resulting controlling sentence was not entirely presumptive and appellate review is permissible	Held: Court had jurisdiction and did not abuse discretion in imposing consecutive sentences; consecutive-sentence judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juveniles categorically ineligible for death penalty; juveniles have diminished culpability)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (categorical ban on juvenile life without parole for nonhomicide offenses; two-step analysis: objective indicia and independent judgment)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles unconstitutional; requires individualized sentencing consideration)
State v. Mossman, 294 Kan. 901 (2012) (Kansas held lifetime PRS constitutional for adult aggravated indecent liberties offenders)
State v. Cameron, 294 Kan. 884 (2012) (Kansas held lifetime PRS constitutional for adult indecent solicitation of a child)
State v. Williams, 298 Kan. 1075 (2014) (discusses appellate jurisdiction to review lifetime PRS in certain contexts)
State v. Ross, 295 Kan. 1126 (2012) (consecutive sentencing where one count is off-grid can permit appellate review of resulting controlling sentence)
State v. Looney, 299 Kan. 903 (2014) (appellate jurisdiction over departure sentences under K.S.A. 21-4721(a); jurisdictional analysis)