State v. Floyd, 294 P.3d 318

Floyd pled guilty to 26 counts of sexual exploitation of a child under Jessica’s Law (K.S.A. 21-4643(a)(1)(F)).
Plea was based on possession of approximately 750 videos and thousands of child pornography images, including material involving Floyd’s 5-year-old niece.
Before sentencing Floyd moved for downward departure on seven mitigating factors; district court denied the motion as not substantial and compelling.
Floyd was sentenced to a hard 25 life term, with sentences ordered to run concurrently due to mitigating factors; he appealed the departure denial.
Floyd argued the mitigating factors were substantial and compelling and that unique case features warranted departure; the State contended the actions were morally reprehensible and outweighed any mitigating factors.
The State argued the postrelease supervision sentence was illegal because Floyd was on a hard 25 term (parole not lifetime supervision); Floyd argued this issue was preserved for appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the departure denial was an abuse of discretion	Floyd contends substantial/compelling factors warranted departure.	State asserts factors were not substantial/compelling and district court acted within discretion.	No abuse of discretion; factors not substantial/compelling.
Whether lifetime postrelease supervision is illegal and must be vacated	Lifetime PSP was improperly imposed with an off-grid life sentence.	Court should vacate illegal component; parole governs release, not lifetime PSP.	Lifetime postrelease supervision vacated; illegal with hard 25.
Whether the hard 25 sentence is cruel or unusual	Challenge to mandatory 25-year minimum as cruel/unusual.	Issue not properly preserved below; no ruling on Freeman factors.	Not properly preserved; not decided on the merits.

State v. Baptist, 294 Kan. 728 (2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for departure motions)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (standard for abuse of discretion and factual support)
State v. Seward, 289 Kan. 715 (2011) (definition of substantial and compelling factors)
State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157 (2008) (mitigating factors not per se substantial/compelling)
State v. Summers, 293 Kan. 819 (2012) (vacating lifetime postrelease supervision with hard 25)
State v. Phillips, 295 Kan. 929 (2012) (parole-based release; illegal with lifetime PSP on off-grid life sentence)
State v. Mendoza, 292 Kan. 933 (2011) (duty to support family not always substantial/compelling)
State v. Plotner, 290 Kan. 774 (2010) (recognizes discretion in departure when defendant shows remorse/responsibility)
State v. Trevino, 290 Kan. 317 (2010) (denial of departure despite some remorse or history)
State v. Robison, 290 Kan. 51 (2010) (no abuse where defendant showed remorse and limited history)
State v. Spotts, 288 Kan. 650 (2009) (mitigating factors like antidepressants not per se substantial)
State v. Oehlert, 290 Kan. 189 (2010) (discussion of preservation and forward-looking analysis)
State v. Roberts, 293 Kan. 1093 (2012) (cruel/unusual punishment first-time argument not preserved)