State v. Ross
284 P.3d 309
Kan.2012Background
- Ross, age 19, pled guilty to aggravated indecent liberties with a child involving a 4-year-old victim.
- Ross has an extensive criminal history with multiple prior convictions from 2001–2009.
- The charge carries a presumptive life sentence with a 25-year minimum and lifetime postrelease supervision under Kansas law.
- The district court departed to 162 months but imposed lifetime postrelease supervision as statutorily required.
- Ross appeal argues that lifetime postrelease supervision is cruel and unusual punishment under Kansas Constitution §9 and the U.S. Constitution.
- Statutes require lifetime postrelease supervision for sexually violent crimes; revocation provisions allow reincarceration for life upon new felonies and discretionary return to custody for misdemeanors.
- The court uses a three-part Freeman framework to analyze cruel or unusual punishment and reviews factual findings deferentially but legal conclusions de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cruel/unusual punishment under Kansas §9. | Ross argues the statute imposes cruel punishment. | State contends no cruel or unusual punishment under the three Freeman factors. | Not cruel or unusual under Kansas §9. |
| Eighth Amendment disproportionality under gross proportionate analysis. | Ross contends lifetime supervision is grossly disproportionate. | State asserts no gross disproportionality. | Not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment. |
| Constitutionality under the Freeman framework. | Life supervision is harsher than necessary. | Statutory scheme valid; deterrence and recidivism considerations support. | Statute not unconstitutional under Freeman factors. |
| Comparison to other jurisdictions and offenses. | Ross's case shows unique circumstances. | Comparable sanctions exist; not disproportionate. | Not disproportionate when comparing to other offenses and jurisdictions. |
| Effect of departure and psych evidence on harshness of sentence. | Departure does not cure postrelease consequences. | Fact-specific evidence supports punishment. | Record supports constitutionality. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362 (1978) (three-part test for cruel or unusual punishment under Kansas Constitution)
- State v. Coutcher, 198 Kan. 282 (1967) (non-criminal penalties may be weighed against constitutional limits)
- State v. Nunn, 247 Kan. 576 (1990) (long sentences not per se cruel or unusual)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (life sentence permissible for recidivist offenses)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (life without parole for large possession upheld)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (gross disproportionality standard for Eighth Amendment)
- Woodard v. State, 294 Kan. 717 (2012) (Eighth Amendment proportionality analysis in Kansas)
- State ex rel. Six v. Kansas Lottery, 286 Kan. 557 (2008) (statutory interpretation guiding constitutional validity)