State v. Schrader, 423 P.3d 523

Christopher Schrader pleaded no contest to involuntary manslaughter (DUI-related) and conspiracy to distribute; sentencing used his prior July 2012 Wichita DUI to raise his criminal-history score to a person-felony level.
Wichita municipal DUI ordinance (W.M.O. 11.38.150) prohibited operating a “vehicle” while intoxicated by alcohol or drugs, listing five alternative ways to show intoxication.
Schrader objected that the Wichita conviction should not count because the municipal ordinance prohibits a broader range of conduct than the state DUI statute; district court overruled the objection and sentenced him to 69 months.
The Kansas Court of Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without scoring the Wichita DUI as a person felony.
The Kansas Supreme Court granted review and held that K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6811(c)(2) requires a prior municipal DUI conviction to be based on an ordinance that is the same as, or narrower than, the state DUI statute; because the Wichita ordinance is broader and indivisible, it may not be used to enhance sentencing here.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, vacated Schrader’s sentence, and remanded for resentencing without treating the Wichita DUI as a person felony.

Issue	Schrader's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a prior Wichita municipal DUI conviction may be counted as a person felony under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6811(c)(2) for sentencing enhancement.	The Wichita DUI ordinance is broader than the state DUI statute, so the prior conviction cannot be used to enhance his sentence.	The ordinance prohibits the same act (DUI); the court need only rely on the prior conviction on the record, not relitigate facts, so it counts for enhancement.	The ordinance is broader (defines "vehicle" more expansively) and is indivisible; under the categorical approach it does not match the state statute, so the prior Wichita DUI cannot be scored as a person felony.

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (fact-finding beyond prior convictions may implicate Sixth Amendment jury-rights principles)
State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 (2015) (approving categorical and modified categorical approaches for comparing prior-offense elements)
State v. Dickey, 305 Kan. 217 (2016) (distinguishing enhancement issues and reiterating state-law framework)
State v. Spencer Gifts, 304 Kan. 755 (2016) (statutory interpretation governed by plain language when unambiguous)
State v. Castleberry, 301 Kan. 170 (2014) (appellate review of statutory interpretation is unlimited)