State v. Mosher, 299 Kan. 1

Mosher pleaded guilty to felony murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder under a plea agreement in which the State agreed to dismiss other charges and recommended concurrent sentences.
The State proffered facts: Mosher conspired with his mother and two others, obtained a gun, entered the victim’s home, and Mosher shot the victim in the head.
The trial court accepted the factual basis and Mosher’s guilty plea at the plea hearing.
At sentencing both parties requested concurrent sentences per the plea agreement, but the judge ordered the sentences to run consecutively: life with no parole for 20 years (felony murder) and 117 months (conspiracy).
Mosher appealed, arguing the judge abused discretion by rejecting the parties’ recommendation and imposing consecutive sentences; the Kansas Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences	Mosher: rejecting the plea recommendation was arbitrary/unreasonable because he accepted responsibility, avoided trial, and faces rehabilitative prerequisites before parole	State: sentencing recommendations are not binding; judge has discretion to impose consecutive sentences based on facts and sentencing considerations	Court held no abuse of discretion — reasonable people could agree with consecutive sentences given planning, preventability, and severity of the offense

State v. Boley, 279 Kan. 989 (2005) (plea-bargain sentence recommendations are not binding on the trial court)
State v. Ross, 295 Kan. 1126 (2012) (trial court has discretion to order concurrent or consecutive sentences)
State v. Jamison, 269 Kan. 564 (2000) (same principle of trial-court discretion over concurrency)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (standards for abuse of discretion: no reasonable person would so act, legal error, or factual error)
State v. Baker, 297 Kan. 482 (2013) (upholding consecutive sentences where district court reasonably exercised discretion)