State v. Looney
299 Kan. 903
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Looney pled guilty to a severity level 1 methamphetamine offense with a criminal-history score of C; the presumptive range was 169–187 months.
- The State recommended a negotiated durational downward departure to 72 months, but explicitly did not bind defense counsel from seeking a dispositional departure (probation).
- At sentencing the court denied Looney’s motion for a dispositional (downward) departure to probation but granted the durational departure and imposed 72 months’ imprisonment.
- Looney appealed the denial of probation to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under K.S.A. 21-4721(c).
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review and considered whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear Looney’s appeal from a departure sentence when there was disagreement about disposition despite a durational agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Looney) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction under K.S.A. 21-4721(a) to review Looney’s departure sentence | K.S.A. 21-4721(a) plainly makes any departure sentence appealable by a defendant; Looney received a departure (72 months) so appeal is permitted | The appellate court lacks jurisdiction under K.S.A. 21-4721(c) because the sentence resulted from an agreement approved on the record | The Court held the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction under 21-4721(a); all departure sentences are appealable unless a specific subsection divests jurisdiction |
| Whether K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(1) barred review because a departure motion was made | Subsection (c)(1) only forbids review of presumptive sentences; Looney did not receive a presumptive sentence | The State relied on caselaw construing (c)(1) to limit appeals where a defendant already obtained a favorable durational departure | The court overruled Crawford to the extent it barred appeals of departure sentences under (c)(1); (c)(1) applies only to presumptive sentences |
| Whether K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(2) — barring review of sentences resulting from an agreement approved on the record — divested jurisdiction here | There was no agreement on disposition: the prosecutor reserved the right to oppose probation and defense expressly sought probation; no single agreed sentence was approved | The State contended the 72-month sentence was the product of a state-defendant agreement approved on the record and thus unreviewable under (c)(2) | The court held (c)(2) did not apply because the record showed disagreement about disposition; (c)(2) did not divest jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Huerta, 291 Kan. 831 (2011) (interpreting limits on appeals from sentencing and recognizing that some prior caselaw misstated scope of appellate review)
- State v. Crawford, 21 Kan. App. 2d 169 (1995) (Court of Appeals decision that had limited appeals from certain departure rulings; explicitly overruled insofar as it barred appeals of departure sentences)
- State v. Williams, 37 Kan. App. 2d 404 (2007) (Court of Appeals dismissal under 21-4721 distinguished because the sentences there were within presumptive ranges)