State v. Florentin, 297 Kan. 594

Florentin was convicted of one count of rape of a child under 14 (K.S.A. 21-3502(a)(2)) based on digital penetration of a 13-year-old by a 19-year-old.
The jury was instructed that rape could be proven by penetration by finger, penis, or any object; Florentin challenged unanimity and sufficiency of evidence for each means.
The district court ordered a sex offender evaluation; the report indicated a 6.6% reoffense risk over five years.
Florentin moved for a departure from Jessica’s Law (life with minimum 25 years) citing mitigating factors; the court denied the motion.
Florentin was sentenced to life with a minimum term of 25 years under Jessica’s Law.
On appeal, Florentin argued (i) improper alternative means instruction, (ii) improper departure denial, and (iii) Eighth Amendment and § 9 challenges to the sentence; the court affirmed all arguments against him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether rape of a child under 14 is an alternative means crime	Florentin argues the statute creates alternative means requiring proof of each mean.	Florentin contends the verdict must be unanimous on each means and insufficient evidence undermines unanimity.	Rape is not an alternative means crime; evidence supports a single act of penetration; unanimous verdict not violated.
Whether the departure from Jessica's Law was properly denied	Florentin claimed substantial and compelling reasons supported a departure to 78 months.	The court properly weighed mitigating factors and found no substantial and compelling reasons to depart.	District court did not abuse discretion; denial affirmed.
Whether the hard 25 life sentence raises Eighth Amendment or § 9 challenges	Florentin argues categorically that the sentence is disproportionate under Graham and § 9.	The court held waiver; no valid case-specific or categorical approache established; relies on Graham and Freeman distinctions.	Sentence affirmed; claims waived or abandoned; no valid categorical or case-specific challenge established.

State v. Newcomb, 296 Kan. 1012 (2013) (clarifies that 21-3502 does not create alternative means)
State v. Swindler, 296 Kan. 670 (2013) (alternative means argument rejected)
State v. Britt, 295 Kan. 1018 (2012) (alternative means framework continued)
State v. Baptist, 294 Kan. 728 (2012) (abuse of discretion standard for departure rulings)
State v. Harsh, 293 Kan. 585 (2011) (mitigating vs. aggravating factor balancing in departures)
State v. Seward, 289 Kan. 715 (2011) (substantial and compelling reasons framework for departures)
State v. Mossman, 294 Kan. 901 (2012) (categorical proportionality analysis limitations; lifetime postrelease)
State v. Cameron, 294 Kan. 884 (2012) (class-based categorization in Eighth Amendment analysis)
State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 (2010) (exception allowing certain law-based categorical challenges on appeal)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (categorical proportionality framework for certain sentences)
Freeman, State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362 (1978) (analysis framework for § 9 challenges)