State v. Mejia, 466 P.3d 1217

Background

Michael Mejia was arrested for DUI in October 2018; the State amended the charge to a felony by relying on three prior Missouri convictions under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.010.
At a preliminary hearing the Johnson County District Court declined to bind Mejia over on the felony DUI count, reasoning the Missouri statute proscribed broader conduct than K.S.A. 8-1567 and citing State v. Wetrich.
The district court dismissed the remaining charges without prejudice; the State appealed under K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(1).
The core legal question: whether out-of-state DUI convictions under statutes broader than Kansas law may be treated as "comparable" predicate offenses for elevating a Kansas DUI to a felony.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Kansas Legislature amended K.S.A. 8-1567 to allow a liberal, "similar conduct" comparability test and directed the district court to reinstate the felony charge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mejia)	Held
1. May the State appeal the district court's refusal to bind over?	District court effectively dismissed the felony complaint and dismissal of other charges enabled statutory appeal.	Appeal improper because preliminary hearing ruling was not a final dismissal.	Appeal proper under K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(1); State may appeal.
2. Does Wetrich's "same-or-narrower" comparability rule control K.S.A. 8-1567?	Wetrich applies to Chapter 21 sentencing only; K.S.A. 8-1567 is a self-contained DUI statute and the Legislature amended it to avoid Wetrich.	Wetrich and Gensler/Descamps framework should apply; comparability requires identical or narrower elements to avoid disparity and Apprendi concerns.	Wetrich is inapplicable as controlling precedent for K.S.A. 8-1567; statute and legislative history show a different, more liberal comparability standard.
3. Are Missouri convictions under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.010 "comparable" despite broader coverage?	Yes; legislature intended "similar conduct" to be liberally construed and cited the Missouri statute as illustrative—such out-of-state convictions can be predicates.	No; Missouri statute is broader (e.g., different definition of vehicle and intoxication) and thus cannot be counted.	Held comparable: Missouri statute qualifies as similar conduct and Mejia's convictions may be used to elevate the charge.
4. Do Apprendi/Mathis Sixth Amendment limits prohibit this comparability analysis?	No; the court compares statutory elements only (not case-specific facts), so no impermissible judge-found facts.	Yes; treating broader out-of-state statutes risks judicial fact-finding about factual conduct, implicating Apprendi.	No Sixth Amendment violation where the comparison is limited to statutory elements; elements-to-elements comparison avoids impermissible fact-finding.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wetrich, 307 Kan. 552, 412 P.3d 984 (Kan. 2018) (held out-of-state convictions counted for Chapter 21 criminal-history scoring only if elements are the same as or narrower than the Kansas offense)
State v. Gensler, 308 Kan. 674, 423 P.3d 488 (Kan. 2018) (applied categorical approach to municipal DUI and held ordinance broader than state statute cannot be a predicate)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (Sixth Amendment prohibits judge-found facts that increase prescribed punishment beyond statutory maximum)
Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. _, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (requires elements-based comparison to avoid impermissible judicial fact-finding when determining predicate crimes)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (formalized categorical and modified categorical approaches for predicate-offense analysis)
State v. Reese, 300 Kan. 650, 333 P.3d 149 (Kan. 2014) (Kansas DUI is a self-contained statute distinct from Chapter 21)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. _, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (recognizes grave public-safety justification for robust DUI enforcement and penalties)