State v. Ritz, 112069

On Dec. 26, 2012, Ritz fled from police in a stolen Corvette after an officer approached; the vehicle crashed and Ritz was arrested. Charges from that date included fleeing/attempting to elude and theft.
On Mar. 5, 2013, Ritz fled from police in a GMC pickup, collided with another vehicle, and a driver (Venancio Perez‑Najera) died; charges included first‑degree felony murder predicated on fleeing, fleeing/attempting to elude, and theft.
The State filed both incidents in a single information; Ritz moved to sever the December and March charges by date.
The district judge denied severance, finding the crimes "of the same or similar character" (overlapping offenses, same mode of trial, similar factual pattern: stolen vehicles, flight when police pulled behind, residential settings, crashes).
A jury convicted Ritz on all charges; he received life for felony murder and concurrent shorter terms for other convictions. Ritz appealed, raising: (1) denial of severance, (2) denial of lesser‑included felony‑murder instructions, and (3) sentencing enhancement via criminal history vis‑à‑vis Apprendi.

Issue	State's Argument	Ritz's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in denying motion to sever (joinder under K.S.A. 22‑3202(1))	Joinder was permissible because the offenses were of the same or similar character and shared mode of trial, evidence, and punishment	The factual similarities do not legally support finding the incidents were of the same or similar character	Denial affirmed: factual findings supported joinder; no abuse of discretion in refusing severance
Whether denying jury instructions on lesser degrees of felony murder violated federal or state jury‑trial rights	No constitutional requirement to instruct on offenses that are not lesser included crimes under state law	Statutory elimination of some lesser‑included instructions violates jury‑trial rights	Denial affirmed: no federal constitutional right; Kansas Constitution's jury‑trial clause does not require jury decide legal instruction choices
Whether using uncharged prior convictions in calculating criminal history for sentencing violated Apprendi	Using criminal history to compute an advisory/enhancement is permissible under Kansas precedent	Prior convictions must be alleged in charging document and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt per Apprendi	Denial affirmed: previous Kansas precedent controls; Apprendi challenge rejected

State v. Gaither, 283 Kan. 671 (2007) (standards for reviewing joinder: factual findings/substantial competent evidence and legal conclusion de novo)
State v. Hurd, 298 Kan. 555 (2013) (three‑step approach to joinder/severance review and prejudice analysis)
State v. Smith‑Parker, 301 Kan. 132 (2014) (discussion of "same or similar character" and limits on consolidation)
State v. Barksdale, 266 Kan. 498 (1999) (tests and cautions for joinder of offenses)
State v. Crawford, 255 Kan. 47 (1994) (joinder test: same general character, mode of trial, kind of evidence)
Hopkins v. Reeves, 524 U.S. 88 (1998) (no federal constitutional requirement to instruct on offenses not lesser included under state law)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (rule limiting factfinding that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum)
State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (2002) (Kansas precedent rejecting Apprendi claim as to use of prior convictions in sentencing)
State v. Williams, 299 Kan. 911 (2014) (reinforcing Kansas precedent on sentencing and prior convictions)