State v. Frecks, 280 P.3d 217

Frecks pleaded guilty to two counts of off-grid aggravated indecent liberties with a child under 14 under a plea agreement that dismissed a third count and left the State silent at sentencing.
Frecks sought Jessica’s Law life sentences with 25-year minimums to run concurrently, but the district court imposed two consecutive life sentences with no parole for 50 years.
Victims were two cousins; the alleged acts occurred in 2009 and 2010; a third count involving a third victim was dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement.
The sentencing court gave minimal justification for consecutively ordering the two life sentences; the State stood silent at sentencing.
The issue presented is whether the district court abused its discretion in ordering consecutive off-grid life sentences; the court has jurisdiction to review off-grid life sentences and affirm the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review consecutive off-grid life sentences	Frecks	State	Court has jurisdiction to review
Whether the district court abused its discretion in ordering consecutive life sentences	Frecks argues concurrent sentences were appropriate given factors	State argues reasons support consecutives; discretion lies with court	No abuse of discretion; consecutive life sentences affirmed

Ortega-Cadelan v. State, 287 Kan. 157 (2008) (off-grid life sentence reviewable; not within presumptive grid; jurisdiction to review 21-4643(a))
State v. Vanderveen, 259 Kan. 836 (1996) (consecutive life sentences reviewable; not per se error)
State v. Flores, 268 Kan. 657 (2000) (no jurisdiction to review when sentence is presumptive; applicable to off-grid context here)
State v. Ware, 262 Kan. 180 (1997) (no jurisdiction to review when life is part of a consecutive sentence in some contexts)
State v. Jacobs, 293 Kan. 465 (2011) (consecutive grid vs. non-grid considerations; contains analysis relevant to review)