State v. McNabb, 478 P.3d 769

Background

In November 2016 David Patrick McNabb confessed to killing his grandmother Betty McNabb and uncle Kenneth McNabb; he pled no contest to two counts of first‑degree premeditated murder, theft, and interference with law enforcement.
McNabb told investigators he shot both victims with a .22 revolver, placed their bodies in 55‑gallon barrels, and disposed of them; investigators later located and exhumed both bodies from a burial site on neighbor property.
Autopsies: Betty died from blunt force head trauma; Kenneth sustained multiple .22 gunshot wounds consistent with the revolver recovered at McNabb’s home, which bore McNabb’s fingerprints.
At sentencing McNabb sought a downward durational departure from the presumptive "hard 50" (life with parole eligibility after 50 years) to two "hard 25" sentences, citing lack of prior felonies, age (31), mental health/limited intellectual functioning, remorse, and character evidence.
The district court denied the departure request, imposed two consecutive hard 50 sentences, and McNabb appealed the denial as an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	McNabb's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a downward durational departure from presumptive hard 50 sentences	McNabb argued his mitigating evidence (no significant prior felonies, age, mental health, remorse, character) constituted "substantial and compelling" reasons for hard 25 terms	The court properly weighed statutory mitigating factors and found they did not rise to substantial and compelling reasons to depart	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying departure
Whether pre‑2011 sentencing rules (allowing hard 25) affect this case	McNabb contended older law showed lesser exposure and supported departure	State noted the murders occurred in 2016 under the then‑applicable hard 50 regime	Court rejected relevance of pre‑2011 statute; 2016 law controls
Whether remorse and character evidence required a lesser sentence	McNabb pointed to remorse, good behavior, rehabilitation potential, and family support	State and court treated remorse/character as relevant but not dispositive	Court held remorse/character do not automatically justify departure and the judge permissibly declined to reduce sentence
Whether the court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive hard 50 terms despite the State’s recommendation for concurrent sentences	McNabb argued the State recommended concurrent terms and the court should follow or explain further	State’s recommendation is not binding; trial court may order consecutive sentences for distinct victims	Court upheld consecutive hard 50s, finding consecutive terms reasonable because two separate people were killed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Galloway, 311 Kan. 238, 459 P.3d 195 (2020) (standard of review for sentencing departures and abuse of discretion)
State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733, 415 P.3d 430 (2018) (abuse‑of‑discretion framework for sentencing)
State v. Brune, 307 Kan. 370, 409 P.3d 862 (2018) (remorse and rehabilitative plans do not automatically mandate a lesser sentence)
State v. Baker, 297 Kan. 482, 301 P.3d 706 (2013) (court may impose presumptive sentence despite remorse and acceptance of responsibility)
State v. Beck, 307 Kan. 108, 406 P.3d 377 (2017) (prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation under a plea is not binding on the trial court)