State v. Morley, 479 P.3d 928

Defendant Ronald Morley pleaded nolo contendere to securities fraud and acting as an unregistered issuer agent; four Kansas investors lost $845,900; Morley received about $50,154 in commissions from those sales.
Kansas law (K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 17-12a508(a)(5)) creates a presumption of imprisonment for securities offenses resulting in losses over $25,000.
At sentencing the district court imposed $845,900 restitution but granted a dispositional departure to 36 months' probation, citing Morley’s acceptance of responsibility (no contest plea + agreement to pay restitution).
The State appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the record lacked substantial competent evidence of acceptance and that acceptance alone was not a substantial and compelling reason to depart.
The Kansas Supreme Court granted review, clarified the standard of appellate review for nonstatutory mitigating factors, affirmed the Court of Appeals’ disposition, vacated Morley’s probationary sentence, and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for departures relying on nonstatutory factors	Abuse of discretion applies but some prior cases imply de novo review for ultimate question	Abuse of discretion and a three-step framework should govern review	Abuse of discretion applies; adopt three-step framework (legality, factual support, reasonableness)
Can "acceptance of responsibility" be a nonstatutory mitigating factor?	It cannot in this case / should be narrowly applied	It can; Morley’s plea and restitution agreement show acceptance	Yes — as a matter of law acceptance can be a mitigating factor
Did the record contain substantial competent evidence that Morley accepted responsibility?	Record does not show true acceptance (nolo plea avoids admission; restitution plan speculative)	Plea, statements, and expressed willingness to repay support the district court’s finding	No — Court of Appeals erred here; record did contain substantial competent evidence of limited acceptance (Supreme Court finds district court’s factual finding supported)
Was acceptance of responsibility alone a "substantial and compelling" reason to depart?	Acceptance alone justified dispositional departure here	Acceptance should suffice given Morley’s expressed repayment plan and plea	No — acceptance alone (especially limited acceptance here) is not a substantial and compelling reason to override the statutory presumption of imprisonment

State v. Martin, 285 Kan. 735, 175 P.3d 832 (discussed standard and multi-factor analysis for departures)
State v. Spencer, 291 Kan. 796, 248 P.3d 256 (earlier attempt to synthesize standards of review)
State v. Bird, 298 Kan. 393, 312 P.3d 1265 (acceptance of responsibility combined with other factors upheld as substantial and compelling)
State v. Jolly, 301 Kan. 313, 342 P.3d 935 (discussed limits on weighing aggravating vs mitigating and acceptance as factor)
State v. Wells, 296 Kan. 65, 290 P.3d 590 (district court discretion to grant or deny departure)
State v. Hines, 296 Kan. 608, 294 P.3d 270 (illustration of what is not "substantial")
State v. Brown, 305 Kan. 674, 387 P.3d 835 (contrast on standard-of-review approaches)
State v. Yazell, 311 Kan. 625, 465 P.3d 1147 (appellate review limited to whether substantial competent evidence supports factual findings)