State v. Grotton, 337 P.3d 56

Amanda Grotton pled guilty to rape and sexual exploitation of her 4-year-old daughter (off-grid Jessica’s Law offenses) based on a video, and to obstructing an officer (severity-level-9 grid felony).
District court sentenced Grotton to two concurrent life terms with a 25-year minimum for the child-sex offenses and a concurrent 6-month term for obstruction.
Grotton moved for a downward durational departure and argued on appeal that the sentencing "double rule" (K.S.A. 21-4720(b)(4)) made her total sentence illegal because her primary (grid) crime carried only a 6-month maximum, so twice that would be 12 months.
The district court rejected application of the double rule to off-grid crimes and denied the departure, stating it could not consider prior criminal history as a mitigating factor for Jessica’s Law sentences.
On appeal the court addressed (1) whether the double rule renders the off-grid life sentences illegal and (2) whether the district court erred in refusing to consider Grotton’s limited criminal history (and other mitigating factors) when ruling on departure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the K.S.A. 21-4720(b)(4) “double rule” limits total sentence when off-grid (indeterminate) sentences are present	Grotton: primary crime is the grid offense (obstruction) so total sentence cannot exceed twice that (12 months)	State: double rule was not meant to limit off-grid sentences; applying it would conflict with Jessica’s Law and produce absurd results	Court held the double rule does not apply to off-grid sentences; Grotton’s life terms are not illegal
Whether the sentencing court may weigh aggravating factors against mitigating factors when deciding a Jessica’s Law departure	Grotton: statute requires review of mitigating circumstances and should not permit weighing away mitigating factors	State: court may consider aggravating circumstances in deciding departures	Court held district court may weigh mitigating and aggravating factors (followed Kansas Supreme Court precedent)
Whether the district court erred by concluding it could not consider lack of significant prior criminal history as a mitigating factor	Grotton: limited record is a listed mitigating factor under K.S.A. 21-4643(d)(1) and must be considered; failure to do so requires remand	State: argued sentencing scheme contemplates off-grid seriousness and legislature sets parole minima	Court held the district court misstated the law by treating prior history as non-considerable and remanded for resentencing so prior history can be properly considered

State v. Bradford, 299 Kan. 288, 323 P.3d 168 (statute-conformity defines illegal sentence)
Fisher v. DeCarvalho, 298 Kan. 482, 314 P.3d 214 (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
State v. Ross, 295 Kan. 1126, 289 P.3d 76 (statutory interpretation principles)
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Servs. Co., 296 Kan. 906, 296 P.3d 1106 (avoid absurd results; interpret statutes harmoniously)
State v. Baptist, 294 Kan. 728, 280 P.3d 210 (Jessica’s Law departure framework)
State v. Rochelle, 297 Kan. 32, 298 P.3d 293 (consideration of mitigating factors in departures)
State v. Remmert, 298 Kan. 621, 316 P.3d 154 (abuse-of-discretion review of departure denial)
State v. Randolph, 297 Kan. 320, 301 P.3d 300 (remand required when court applies wrong mitigating-factor list)