State v. Hood, 300 P.3d 1083

Hood was convicted of two counts of felony theft for taking a bank bag and a purse from Yen Ching restaurant in Wichita during a single incident.
The two thefts involved different property items (bank bag and purse) with different owners, leading the Court of Appeals to reject a multiplicity claim.
The district court sentenced Hood to concurrent terms of 6 months for each theft conviction after a 57-month aggravated burglary term.
On review, the Supreme Court reversed one theft conviction as multiplicitous but left sentencing issues for later consideration.
The Court analyzed whether the two convictions arise from the same conduct and, if not, whether multiple offenses were defined by the statute, applying Schoonover to determine the unit of prosecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Hood’s two theft convictions multiplicitous under Schoonover?	Hood contends the two thefts were a single unit of conduct.	State argues two separate acts by taking two items from the same incident constitute separate offenses.	Yes; only one unit of prosecution, so one conviction must be vacated.
Was Hood's sentence valid given reliance on prior criminal history?	Hood argues sentencing based on history requires jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt.	State relies on Apprendi precedent allowing prior convictions to influence sentence.	Merits of the sentencing issue are rejected; no error found in using criminal history for sentencing.

State v. Thompson, 287 Kan. 238 (2009) (multiplicity and double jeopardy framework for unit of prosecution; same conduct and statute)
State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453 (2006) (framework for unit of prosecution; factors for unitary conduct)
State v. Pham, 281 Kan. 1227 (2006) (rule of lenity when legislative intent is unclear)
State v. Thomas, 24 Kan. App. 2d 734 (1998) (single larceny doctrine; ownership notice considerations)
State v. Stoops, 4 Kan. App. 2d 130 (1979) (early articulation cited by Thomas)
State v. Spencer, 291 Kan. 796 (2011) (statutory construction and ownership considerations in theft)