State v. Powell, 393 P.3d 174

Kurt Powell pled guilty to aggravated indecent liberties with his daughter (child under 14); Jessica's Law prescribes life with no parole for 25 years (hard 25) absent substantial and compelling mitigating reasons.
Plea agreement allowed Powell to seek a downward durational departure; he moved for a 29½-month sentence citing lack of criminal history, work/family support, amenability to rehabilitation, and cooperation.
Defense presented psychologist testimony and character evidence supporting departure; the State presented Powell's adult stepdaughter to rebut and describe extensive prior childhood sexual abuse by Powell.
District court stated it had considered all information presented but denied the departure and imposed the hard-25 Jessica's Law sentence; it also ordered a no-contact restriction with the victim and the stepdaughter.
Powell appealed, arguing the court improperly weighed aggravating evidence against mitigating factors in violation of Jolly and that the no-contact order is an illegal condition to a prison sentence.
The appellate majority vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the record was ambiguous as to whether the court followed the Jolly two-step (review mitigating factors without weighing aggravators), and vacated the no-contact order as beyond sentencing authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court weighed aggravating factors against mitigating factors in deciding a Jessica's Law downward departure	Powell: court considered State's aggravating evidence against his mitigating proof, violating Jolly's required two-step review	State: court properly considered all evidence and reasonably concluded no substantial and compelling reasons existed; court did not expressly weigh aggravators against mitigators	Vacated and remanded — record ambiguous whether Jolly protocol was followed; failure to show Jolly compliance is an abuse of discretion
Whether a no-contact order may be imposed as part of a prison sentence	Powell: no-contact order is a probationary condition and illegal when combined with imprisonment	State: conceded district court lacked authority to impose no-contact as condition of imprisonment	Vacated no-contact order as exceeding sentencing authority

State v. Jolly, 301 Kan. 313 (establishes two-step Jessica's Law departure protocol; no weighing of aggravators against mitigators)
State v. McCormick, 305 Kan. 43 (reaffirmed Jolly; remand required when court expressly weighs aggravators against mitigators)
State v. Plotner, 290 Kan. 774 (holding that imprisonment plus no-contact probation condition is illegal)
State v. Alcala, 301 Kan. 832 (no-contact order is a probation condition and cannot properly accompany a prison sentence)
State v. Randolph, 297 Kan. 320 (articulates abuse of discretion standard for reviewing sentencing)
State v. Marshall, 303 Kan. 438 (definition of abuse of discretion in sentencing review)
State v. Lee, 304 Kan. 416 (reviews standards for considering whether a sentence is illegal)