State v. Robinson
410 P.3d 923
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 20, 2013 officers found Robinson passed out in his car, smelled of alcohol, with bloodshot eyes; he admitted drinking and his license was suspended. Field sobriety tests showed impairment and an open container was found.
- Robinson refused a preliminary breath test (PBT) and an evidentiary breath test after being warned of penalties; he was charged with DUI (alleged fourth or subsequent), refusal to submit to testing (K.S.A. 8-1025), refusal to submit to a PBT (K.S.A. 8-1012), open container, and driving on a suspended license.
- A jury convicted Robinson of DUI, refusal to submit to testing (8-1025), refusal to submit to a PBT (8-1012), and open container; acquitted on driving while suspended.
- After Ryce I (303 Kan. 899) but before Ryce II (306 Kan. 682) was final, Robinson moved to vacate the 8-1025 conviction; the district court denied relief. On appeal the State conceded 8-1025 is unconstitutional under Ryce.
- The appellate court considered whether 8-1012 (PBT refusal) is likewise unconstitutional, and whether out-of-state DUI convictions may be used to enhance Robinson’s Kansas sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Robinson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1025 (refusal to submit to testing) | 8-1025 criminalizes withdrawal of consent to a warrantless search and is unconstitutional | (Conceded) statute invalid under Ryce | Reversed (statute facially unconstitutional; conviction vacated) |
| Constitutionality of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1012 (refusal to submit to PBT) | 8-1012 likewise criminalizes withdrawal of implied consent to a warrantless search and is not narrowly tailored | 8-1012 is constitutional: serves compelling interests (public safety, law enforcement), is narrowly tailored; PBT is limited and based on reasonable suspicion | Reversed (8-1012 unconstitutional for same reasons as 8-1025; conviction and sentence vacated) |
| Use of out-of-state DUI convictions to enhance sentence | California and Arizona convictions should not be used absent categorical/modified-categorical analysis; some foreign statutes broader than Kansas’s DUI | Arizona convictions conceded by State to be noncomparable; State argues PSI shows California convictions likely comparable or asks for remand | Remanded: Arizona convictions cannot be used; court remands to district court to determine whether California convictions qualify under categorical/modified-categorical approach |
| Mandatory fine and alternative community service | District court imposed $2,500 mandatory fine without first considering community service alternative | State did not contest remand; issue preserved for resentencing | Not reached (remanded for resentencing; fine issue left for district court) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899 (Kan. 2016) (held K.S.A. 8-1025 facially unconstitutional for criminalizing withdrawal of implied consent)
- State v. Ryce, 306 Kan. 682 (Kan. 2017) (reaffirmed Ryce I in light of Birchfield)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (distinguished breath and blood tests; breath may be search incident to arrest; criminal penalties for refusing blood draws impermissible)
- State v. Jones, 279 Kan. 71 (Kan. 2005) (PBT is a search subject to Fourth Amendment)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (U.S. 2013) (established categorical and modified-categorical approaches for comparing prior-offense elements)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (statutory-elements requirement relevant to sentencing enhancements)