State v. Obregon, 309 Kan. 1267

Christopher Obregon pleaded no contest to two drug felonies (marijuana and cocaine possession with intent to distribute) from May 2016; plea agreement included a firearm statutory enhancement.
Presentence report listed a 2012 Florida battery conviction and recommended it be scored as a Kansas "person" felony, producing a B criminal-history score; if scored nonperson, Obregon would be a C.
Florida battery statute contains alternative means: (1) intentional touching/striking against the will, or (2) intentionally causing bodily harm; Kansas battery has different language and is a person crime.
The PSI did not specify which statutory alternative in Florida supported Obregon’s conviction; Obregon did not object at sentencing.
Court of Appeals affirmed the criminal-history classification but held Obregon had not validly waived a jury trial on the firearm enhancement and remanded for jury factfinding; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Obregon's Florida battery conviction may be scored as a Kansas person felony	Obregon: PSI fails to identify which alternative means was convicted; State must prove by preponderance that the conviction matches a Kansas person offense	State: (implicitly) Florida battery is comparable and may be scored as person felony	Court: Vacated person-crime classification; remand for district court to determine which alternative was convicted and for State to prove comparability by a preponderance of evidence (apply Wetrich)
Whether the firearm enhancement may be imposed after Obregon’s no-contest pleas without a jury finding	Obregon: Remand for a jury to decide the enhancement is improper because Kansas law prohibits special verdicts and legislature provided no post-verdict procedure	State: (as applied by Court of Appeals) enhancement requires Apprendi-compliant trier-of-fact finding	Court: Vacated the enhancement and ordered resentencing without the enhancement; remand for jury finding was improper because Kansas generally prohibits special jury verdicts post-conviction

State v. Wetrich, 307 Kan. 552 (2018) (out-of-state conviction is comparable only if elements are identical to or narrower than the Kansas offense)
State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585 (2019) (parties may obtain benefit of change in law during pendency of direct appeal)
State v. Vandervort, 276 Kan. 164 (2003) (earlier standard treating out-of-state offenses as "comparable" rather than strictly identical)
State v. Buell, 307 Kan. 604 (2018) (Florida burglary statute broader than Kansas comparator)
State v. Moore, 307 Kan. 599 (2018) (Oregon burglary mens rea broader than Kansas comparator)
State v. Brown, 298 Kan. 1040 (2014) (general prohibition on special verdicts in criminal cases)
State v. Hughes, 290 Kan. 159 (2010) (State bears burden to prove criminal-history classifications by preponderance)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (when a statute is divisible, limited review of documents is permitted to determine which alternative formed basis of conviction)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (modified categorical approach and permissible sentencing-court review of certain records to identify statute alternative)