State v. Herrmann
384 P.3d 1019
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Herrmann pleaded no contest in 2012 to attempted aggravated indecent liberties with a child (severity level 6 person felony) and was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment plus 24 months' postrelease supervision (PRS).
- The State later moved to correct an illegal sentence because K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 22-3717(d)(1)(G) mandated lifetime PRS for convictions of sexually violent crimes committed after July 1, 2006.
- The district court granted the State's motion and resentenced Herrmann to lifetime PRS; Herrmann appealed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to modify a now-legal sentence.
- Herrmann argued the 2013 amendments to K.S.A. 22-3717(d)(1)(D) effectively allowed a months-based PRS tied to severity level (24 months for level 6) and thus his original 24-month PRS was lawful post-amendment.
- The State countered that subparagraph (G) unambiguously requires lifetime PRS for sexually violent crimes committed on or after July 1, 2006, and that (G) controls Herrmann’s sentence.
- The court analyzed statutory text, structure (in pari materia), legislative history, and retroactivity principles and concluded (G) exclusively applied to Herrmann, making his original 24-month PRS illegal and the resentencing lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Herrmann's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to correct Herrmann's PRS | 2013 amendment to (d)(1)(D) created an alternative months-based PRS (24 months for level 6) that retroactively validated his original PRS, so court could not change a legal sentence | (d)(1)(G) plainly mandates lifetime PRS for sexually violent crimes after July 1, 2006; Herrmann falls under (G), so original PRS was illegal and correctable | Court held (G) applied exclusively; original 24-month PRS was illegal and resentencing to lifetime PRS was authorized |
| Whether (d)(1)(D) and (d)(1)(G) conflict or create ambiguity | The two provisions conflict; apply rule of lenity to impose the lesser term | The provisions apply to different classes and are reconcilable; no ambiguity exists | Court held no conflict: (D) covers offenses July 1, 1993–June 30, 2006; (G) covers sexually violent crimes on/after July 1, 2006, so both can be harmonized |
| Whether the 2013 amendments apply retroactively to Herrmann | The amendments retroactively eliminate mandatory lifetime PRS for sexually violent crimes by adding (D)’s months-based rule | The statutory scheme and plain language show (G) remained intact and controlling for post–July 1, 2006 offenses; no retroactivity issue needed | Court declined to apply (D) retroactively because (D) does not govern offenses covered by (G) |
| Proper construction of K.S.A. 22-3717(d)(1) | Legislative changes create an option between (D) and (G) for sexually violent offenders | Read statute in pari materia and give effect to exception in (d)(1) excluding persons subject to (G) from other subparagraphs | Court construed statute to give effect to all provisions: (G) is an express exception; (D) applies only to earlier cohort |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hall, 298 Kan. 978 (court lacks jurisdiction to modify a legal sentence)
- State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549 (definition of "illegal sentence" under K.S.A. 22-3504)
- State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 (statutory provisions must be read in pari materia and reconciled)