State v. Schaeffer, 286 P.3d 889

Schaeffer pleaded guilty in 1994 at age 17 to first-degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and a weapons violation; sentences were life on counts 1 and 2, 15 years to life on count 3, and 5 years on count 4, all consecutive.
Crimes arose from the March 1993 abduction and fatal shooting of Timothy Riley; Schaeffer used a sawed-off shotgun and acted with Joshua Kaiser.
Schaeffer was prosecuted as an adult due to three prior juvenile adjudications for offenses that would have been Class E felonies as an adult; he underwent a psychological examination at Larned State Security Hospital.
At sentencing, the district judge made sweeping, highly critical remarks about Schaeffer, expressed strong dislike for him, and suggested extensive future confinement; the judge also commented on the Larned psych report.
Schaeffer appealed arguing judicial bias mandating recusal and resentencing, and challenging consideration of the mental examination at sentencing; the court affirmed the sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judge’s comments showed bias requiring recusal or resentencing.	Schaeffer argues the judge’s extreme comments demonstrate bias and prejudice.	Schaeffer contends bias invalidates sentencing and warrants resentencing before a different judge.	No reversal for actual bias; no demonstrable prejudice required setting aside sentences.
Whether the mental examination was properly considered at sentencing and Miranda warnings were required.	Schaeffer asserts the report and examination statements were improperly used and Miranda warnings were needed.	The exam report is a valid presentence item; no Miranda warning needed because consent to examination arose from insanity-defense notice.	Properly considered as part of presentence report; Miranda warnings not required given consent to examination.

State v. Robinson, 293 Kan. 1002 (2012) (bias can be presumed in limited circumstances; here not enough to set aside)
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) (presumption of bias in certain scenarios; not applicable here)
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (bias if stake in outcome and influence in election or funding)
Davenport Pastures v. Board of Morris County Comm’rs, 291 Kan. 132 (2010) (in administrative action, multiple attorney roles may create bias risk)
State v. Logan, 236 Kan. 79 (1984) (disqualification when impartiality reasonably questioned)
State v. Griffen, 241 Kan. 68 (1987) (extraordinary facts required for presumptive bias)
State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 279 (1993) (reversal for bias only if actual prejudice shown)
State v. Starbuck, 239 Kan. 132 (1986) (extraordinary facts standard for bias concerns)
Korbel, 231 Kan. 657 (1982) (pre-sentence mental examination permitted in presentence report)
Cheever, 295 Kan. 229 (2012) (insanity defense; mental exam with state-ordered evaluation; Miranda issues context dependent)