State v. Hines, 294 P.3d 270

Hines pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree intentional murder and aggravated battery following a brutal May 29, 2008 domestic violence attack on Charmaine in Wichita.
Probable cause affidavit described two neck cuts and multiple choke attempts, witnessed by two children, leading to Charmaine’s hospital transport.
Pre-sentence, Hines had an H criminal history score; guidelines yielded 61–66–71 months for attempted murder and 38–43 months for aggravated battery; aggregate ranges differ by offense.
Plea agreement allowed a dispositional departure argument but prohibited a downward durational departure or consecutive sentences; State could argue aggravated prison terms and consecutive sentences.
At sentencing, Charmaine urged leniency; defense urged dispositional considerations; the court indicated it would depart durationally, citing Charmaine’s request for leniency as the basis.
Court imposed downward durational departures of 24 months for each offense, running concurrent; State appealed alleging the leniency request was not a substantial and compelling reason.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can a victim’s leniency request be a substantial and compelling reason to depart?	State: leniency alone can be substantial if supported by record evidence.	Hines: leniency cannot justify departure; must be other substantial factors.	Leniency alone is insufficient; not a substantial and compelling reason here.
Did the district court rely solely on Charmaine’s leniency request or were other reasons used?	State: court also considered dispositional factors from Hines’ motion.	Hines: court relied on other stated factors in the motion.	Court relied primarily on leniency; other reasons not clearly supported on record.
Is Favela controlling to bar leniency as a sole basis for departure in this context?	State: Favela forecloses leniency as sole basis.	Hines: Favela does not categorically bar leniency; depends on record.	Favela does not preclude considering leniency; however, here it was not substantial and compelling.

State v. Blackmon, 285 Kan. 719 (2008) (set forth standard that record findings govern reasons for departure)
State v. Heath, 21 Kan. App. 2d 410 (1995) (victim statements may support a departure under proper circumstances)
Favela v. State, 259 Kan. 215 (1996) (recognizes varying weight of factors; some may justify departure as substantial and compelling)
State v. Spencer, 291 Kan. 796 (2011) (standard of review for departure decisions)
State v. McKay, 271 Kan. 725 (2001) (mitigating factors may not universally justify departure)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (abuse-of-discretion review framework for departures)