State v. Mossman
281 P.3d 153
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Mossman pleaded no contest to aggravated indecent liberties with a child and possession of cocaine; lifetime postrelease supervision was mandatory for the sex offense.
- Mossman challenged the lifetime postrelease supervision as cruel/unusual punishment under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution and the Eighth Amendment.
- The district court applied the Freeman three-factor test and upheld the lifetime postrelease supervision as constitutional.
- Mossman presented expert testimony and argued the conditions and possibility of life imprisonment upon violation rendered the sentence disproportionate.
- On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court addressed both the Kansas Constitution and the Eighth Amendment analyses, following Graham v. Florida for the federal framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does lifetime postrelease supervision violate § 9 as disproportionate punishment? | Mossman contends the life supervision is disproportionate. | State argues the Freeman factors support constitutionality and deterrence/incapacitation goals. | Not disproportionate; Freeman factors support constitutionality |
| Does the sentence violate the Eighth Amendment as a case-specific proportionality issue? | Graham-based analysis shows disproportionality for this offender. | Sentence serves legitimate penological goals and is not grossly disproportionate. | Not grossly disproportionate; case-specific analysis fails |
| Is there a categorical Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge applicable to Mossman’s offense and class of offenders? | Requests application of Graham to a broader class and offense. | Graham applicability is limited; no broad categorical ban here. | Categorical challenge rejected; not cruel and unusual |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362 (Kan. 1978) (three-factor test for proportionality in punishment)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (proportionality framework for life/no-parole for juveniles; categorical vs case-specific analysis)
- State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157 (Kan. 2008) (case addressing Freeman factors and proportionality review)
- State v. Levy, 292 Kan. 379 (Kan. 2011) (discusses proportionality and Freeman factors)
- State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666 (Kan. 2010) (proportionality considerations in sentencing)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (president of proportionality framework for term-of-years sentences)