State v. Morley, 448 P.3d 1066

Ronald D. Morley was indicted on 12 felony counts for securities-related offenses arising from sales of Summit Trust preferred stock to four Kansas investors, who lost $845,900 in principal; Morley received $50,154 in commissions.
Plea agreement: Morley pleaded no contest to one count of securities fraud (severity level 4) and one count of acting as an unregistered issuer agent (severity level 5); State dismissed the remaining counts and agreed to recommend concurrent sentences; parties could argue restitution amount and sentencing.
Sentencing exposure was presumptive prison; K.S.A. 17-12a508(a)(5) creates a statutory presumption of imprisonment for KUSA violations causing losses over $25,000.
At sentencing Morley sought dispositional and durational departures, arguing minor role, lack of criminal history, cooperation, restitution willingness, and acceptance of responsibility; he testified and victims gave impact statements.
The district court granted a dispositional departure to probation (41 and 32 months ordered concurrent but suspended to probation) relying solely on a nonstatutory mitigating factor: Morley had "accepted responsibility" (pleaded no contest and agreed to pay restitution of $845,900).
The State appealed, arguing (1) there was not substantial competent evidence that Morley accepted responsibility and (2) even if so, that factor did not constitute a substantial and compelling reason to depart.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Morley)	Held
Whether substantial competent evidence supported the district court's finding that Morley accepted responsibility	No: no contest plea is not an admission; plea motivated by favorable bargain; restitution agreement was nominal and unsupported by a plan	Yes: no contest acknowledges the factual basis sufficient for conviction; Morley admitted failures and agreed to restitution	Held: No — the record lacked substantial competent evidence that Morley accepted responsibility (no contest plea and restitution agreement insufficient)
Whether, assuming acceptance-of-responsibility existed, that factor constituted a substantial and compelling reason for a dispositional departure	No: facts (serious victim loss, prior similar misconduct, no workable restitution plan, statutory presumption of imprisonment) weigh against departure	Yes: acceptance of responsibility and willingness to pay restitution justify departure to allow restitution efforts	Held: No — even if acceptance existed, it was not substantial and compelling given offense seriousness, victim harm, prior sanction, statutory policy favoring imprisonment, and lack of concrete restitution ability

State v. Theurer, 50 Kan. App. 2d 1203 (Kan. App. 2014) (discusses limits of treating no contest plea as acceptance of responsibility)
State v. Bird, 298 Kan. 393 (Kan. 2013) (recognizes acceptance of responsibility can be a nonstatutory mitigating factor)
State v. Reed, 302 Kan. 227 (Kan. 2015) (requirements for stating reasons and findings for departure on the record)
State v. May, 293 Kan. 858 (Kan. 2012) (standard for substantial competent evidence review)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (Kan. 2011) (abuse of discretion standards)
State v. Hand, 297 Kan. 734 (Kan. 2013) (measure of restitution is victim's actual loss)
State v. McKay, 271 Kan. 725 (Kan. 2001) (analyzing factors to determine whether departures are substantial and compelling)
State v. Martin, 285 Kan. 735 (Kan. 2008) (consider offense, history, departure reasons, and KSGA purposes)
State v. Brown, 305 Kan. 674 (Kan. 2017) (departures should be allowed only in extraordinary cases)
State v. Eisele, 262 Kan. 80 (Kan. 1997) (same principle on rarity of departures)
State v. Hines, 296 Kan. 608 (Kan. 2013) (on substantial and compelling standard)