State v. Hernandez, 257 P.3d 767

Hernandez was convicted by jury of premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and residential burglary, and sentenced to life with a hard 50 minimum for murder plus 74 months for the other offenses.
The victim, Adam Hooks, was murdered and dismembered; his body was discovered in a Rubbermaid container and bags in Hooks' vehicle after Hernandez had visited the trailer and later disposed of evidence.
Hernandez admitted in a post-arrest videotaped statement to stabbing Hooks, dismembering the body, and attempting to conceal the crime, after a night of heavy intoxication and drug use earlier that day.
Physical and circumstantial evidence placed Hernandez near Hooks and linked him to the crime, including proximity to Hooks at the time and efforts to hide or move the body.
On appeal, Hernandez challenged (1) prosecutorial misconduct in closing, (2) the absence of a voluntary intoxication instruction, (3) the identical offense doctrine, (4) the hard 50 sentencing scheme, and (5) BIDS attorney-fee reimbursement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor's closing remarks misconduct	Hernandez argues the rebuttal reference to watching Hooks' body was outside evidence and prejudicial.	State contends the remark was harmless retrospection and does not affect the verdict.	Comment was Harmless Retrospection; no reversible error beyond the record.
Need for voluntary intoxication instruction	Hernandez asserts evidence of intoxication demanded a voluntary intoxication instruction.	State argues evidence did not show impairment so as to defeat specific-intent requirements.	No basis to instruct; insufficient evidence of impairment to form specific intent.
Identical offense doctrine as to sentencing	Hernandez contends premiditation differs from intent in second-degree murder for purposes of sentencing.	State maintains Warledo controls and the offenses are not identical for sentencing.	Crimes are not identical for sentencing; Warledo controls.
Constitutionality of hard 50 sentencing scheme	Hard 50 scheme violates due process by increasing penalties based on unproved facts.	State cites repeated upholding of hard 50 as constitutional.	Hard 50 scheme upheld; no constitutional violation shown.
BIDS fees and discretionary payment	Court failed to adequately ensure BIDS fees were paid consistent with resources.	Trial court properly considered defendant's ability to pay; abuse of discretion lacking.	Fee assessment not an abuse of discretion; properly limited by resources and statute.

State v. Ward, 256 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2011) (harmless error standard for prosecutorial misconduct with federal rights implications)
State v. Scott, 183 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2008) (harmless error analysis for outside-the-evidence statements)
State v. Warledo, 190 P.3d 937 (Kan. 2008) (identical-offense doctrine; sentencing not identical despite same elements)
State v. Drayton, 175 P.3d 861 (Kan. 2008) (mandatory BIDS reimbursement standards and abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Johnson, 190 P.3d 207 (Kan. 2008) (prohibits reliance on consumption alone to infer impairment for intoxication instruction)
State v. Ellmaker, 221 P.3d 1105 (Kan. 2009) (reaffirmation of hard 50 upholding)
State v. Brown, 904 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1995) (voluntary intoxication defense requires impairment evidence)
State v. Parker, 913 P.2d 1236 (Kan. App. 1996) (defense instruction standard for voluntary intoxication)
State v. Anderson, 197 P.3d 409 (Kan. 2008) (instruction on defense theory; rational-factfinder standard)