State v. Ross
289 P.3d 76
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Ross pled no contest to felony murder (off-grid) and kidnapping (on-grid) under a plea deal.
- The court imposed life imprisonment for felony murder and 61 months for kidnapping, with 36 months of postrelease supervision initially noted for the kidnapping.
- A nunc pro tunc order later changed postrelease supervision from 36 months to lifetime, based on the off-grid/off-grid sentencing framework.
- The journal entry indicated KORA registration due to felony murder and kidnapping (with victim alleged to be under 18 in the 4(A) provision).
- The State conceded KORA registration under 22-4902(a)(2) but not under 22-4902(a)(4)(A) since the record did not establish the victim’s under-18 status.
- Ross challenged (1) lifetime postrelease supervision, (2) KORA registration under 22-4902(a)(4)(A), (3) the aggravated on-grid sentence in the grid block, and (4) consecutiveness of sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lifetime postrelease supervision was lawful. | Ross contends court lacked jurisdiction to impose lifetime postrelease supervision. | Ross argues the supervision should be limited to the life parole framework for off-grid crimes. | Lifetime postrelease supervision vacated; lifetime parole applies instead. |
| Whether KORA registration under 22-4902(a)(4)(A) was required. | Ross asserts he was not subject to 22-4902(a)(4)(A) because the victim was not shown to be under 18. | Ross remained potentially subject to the 4(A) provision due to kidnapping with a minor victim. | Remanded to delete 22-4902(a)(4)(A) explicit requirement; registration under 22-4902(a)(2) remains. |
| Whether the kidnapping aggravated sentence within the grid block was proper. | Ross alleges improper use of an aggravated sentence without a jury finding. | Ross acknowledges prior precedents but preserves the issue for review. | Court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of the aggravated-on-grid sentence. |
| Whether consecutive sentencing was an abuse of discretion. | Ross contends misalignment of off-grid and on-grid sentences running consecutively. | Court should consider whether consecutive handling was appropriate given the offenses. | Court has jurisdiction to review and concludes no abuse; sentences may run consecutively. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Torres, 2009 WL 862166 (2009) (interpretation of postrelease supervision in off-grid/on-grid contexts)
- State v. Cash, 293 Kan. 326 (2011) (illegal sentences may be corrected; unlimited review on legality)
- State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 (2009) (avoid unreasonable results; interpret statutes harmoniously)
- State v. Raschke, 289 Kan. 911 (2009) (interpretation of multiple convictions and postrelease terms)
- State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157 (2008) (life sentence for off-grid crime not a presumptive sentence; appellate review permitted)
- State v. Frecks, 294 Kan. 738 (2012) (life sentence for off-grid crime not presumptive; review of consecutive discretion)
- State v. Ware, 262 Kan. 180 (1997) (assumed presumptive sentence; jurisdictional dismissal of issues on review)
- State v. Flores, 268 Kan. 657 (2000) ( Ware/Flores approach to consecutive sentencing review)
- Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157 (2008) (life sentence not presumptive; review of consecutive sentencing)
- State v. Jamison, 269 Kan. 564 (2000) (discretion in concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing)
- State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)