State v. Jacobs, 263 P.3d 790

Jacobs pled guilty to three offenses: off-grid aggravated indecent liberties, severity level 3 aggravated indecent liberties, and severity level 3 criminal sodomy.
The State agreed to depart from Jessica's Law to the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act grid for the off-grid offense.
The sentencing judge imposed 107 months (high end of the grid for off-grid) and 61 months for each of the severity level 3 convictions.
All three sentences were ordered to run consecutively to each other and to Jacobs' sentence in another case.
Jacobs challenged Jessica's Law as unconstitutional and the consecutive sentencing as an abuse of discretion; the court addressed preservation and jurisdiction issues.
The court held that the constitutional challenge was not preserved for review and could not be considered, and it lacked jurisdiction to review the consecutive-vs-concurrent issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutional challenge preservation	Jacobs contends Jessica's Law is unconstitutional.	State argues no preservation for federal/state challenge to Jessica's Law.	No review; preserved challenge not entertained.
Consecutive versus concurrent sentences	Jacobs argues judge erred by making sentences consecutive.	State argues consecutive presumptive sentences are not departures and not appealable; no abuse of discretion review.	No jurisdiction to address; sentences were presumptive and consecutive, and not subject to appellate correction.

State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. 117 (2011) (preservation requirement for constitutional challenges to statutes)
State v. Berriozabal, 291 Kan. 568 (2010) (standing to challenge constitutionality based on application)
State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 (2010) (statutory challenge considerations; Syl. ¶ 11)
State v. Snow, 282 Kan. 323 (2006) (cannot challenge statute on grounds of hypothetical application)
State v. Flores, 268 Kan. 657 (2000) (consecutive sentences not a departure; standard of review)
State v. Bramlett, 273 Kan. 67 (2002) (consecutive presumptive sentences not a departure)
State v. Hernandez, 292 Kan. 598 (2011) (contemplated grid within sentencing; within-grid presumptive)
State v. Huerta, 291 Kan. 831 (2011) (same presumptive-grid framework; sentencing review)