State v. Espinoza, 462 P.3d 159

Filiberto Espinoza Jr. was charged with premeditated first‑degree murder and related counts and pleaded guilty to first‑degree felony murder, an off‑grid person felony that carries a mandatory "hard 25" (no parole before 25 years).
Before sentencing he moved for a durational departure, arguing the hard‑25 statute was unconstitutional as applied under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution (invoking the Freeman proportionality framework).
At sentencing Espinoza reiterated his as‑applied challenge and listed mitigating facts, but the district court denied the departure, found the statute binding, and made no factual findings addressing the constitutional claim.
Espinoza did not object to the absence of findings at sentencing and did not file a motion under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 165 asking the judge to state findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The Kansas Supreme Court held that as‑applied § 9 disproportionality challenges require factual development and that the defendant bears the obligation to secure findings (by invoking Rule 165 if necessary); because Espinoza failed to do so, his claim was not reviewable on appeal.
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of the durational departure and refused to remand for factual findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Espinoza preserved an as‑applied § 9 disproportionality challenge and whether the district court erred by failing to make factual findings	State: statute (hard‑25) is binding; sentence constitutional; no additional findings required	Espinoza: Freeman requires case‑specific proportionality analysis; district court must evaluate facts and make findings	Court: Defendant must ensure factual record; failure to seek Rule 165 findings or object means claim not reviewable; no error warranting relief
Whether remand for factual development was required	State: no remand—Espinoza failed to preserve and develop the record	Espinoza: remand required so district court can make findings and allow appellate review	Court: Remand denied; only exceptional cases (per Seward) merit remand when judge failed to find facts without a Rule 165 request; not an exceptional case here

State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362 (1978) (announced three‑pronged proportionality test for durational departures under § 9)
State v. Patterson, 455 P.3d 792 (2020) (as‑applied § 9 challenges require both legal and factual inquiry; record needed for appellate review)
State v. Seward, 289 Kan. 715 (2009) (defendant must invoke Rule 165 to secure findings; only exceptional circumstances justify remand)
State v. Reed, 300 Kan. 494 (2014) (affirmed that failure to request findings under Rule 165 precludes appellate relief)
State v. Cervantes‑Puentes, 297 Kan. 560 (2013) (reiterated defendant's responsibility to ensure adequate factual findings for § 9 claims)