State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. 346

Sellers was convicted by jury on two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under K.S.A. 21-3504(a)(3)(A).
Sentence: consecutive 72-month on Count 1 and 59-month on Count 2, plus lifetime postrelease supervision and lifetime electronic monitoring.
Counts 1 and 2 stem from touching the victim (M.R.C.) on breast and pubic area during Thanksgiving weekend 2007.
Count 3 (Halloween touching) led to acquittal.
Sellers challenged psychological evaluation of the victim, multiplicity, and postrelease/electronic monitoring provisions; district court denied some motions.
At sentencing, court corrected postrelease from 36 months to lifetime and imposed lifetime electronic monitoring, which was later vacated on appeal as improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Psychological evaluation of the victim necessary?	Sellers argues compelling circumstances justify evaluation.	State contends no compelling need under Price factors.	No abuse of discretion; no compelling circumstance shown.
Are Counts 1 and 2 multiplicity for same conduct?	Sellers contends same conduct; two counts multiplicitous.	State argues break between touchings constitutes separate acts.	Not multiplicious; two acts present a fresh impulse and break in conduct.
Lifetime postrelease unconstitutional?	Unpreserved challenge; seeks reversal.	Jessica’s Law challenges preserved; not revisited here.	Issue deemed unpreserved; not reached on direct appeal.
Court lacked jurisdiction to modify postrelease term?	Age/ off-grid analysis may limit punishment; seeks 36 months.	Ballard allows correction of illegal sentence; age evidence insufficient.	Lifetime postrelease affirmed; 36-month term improper for off-grid, but corrected not required.
Lifetime electronic monitoring proper?	Postrelease monitoring extends beyond parole board authority.	Monitoring tied to parole, not postrelease.	Electronic monitoring vacated; remanded for proper postrelease-only framework.

State v. Price, 275 Kan. 78, 61 P.3d 676 (2003) (factors for compulsion of psychological evaluation; totality of circumstances)
State v. Berriozabal, 291 Kan. 568, 243 P.3d 352 (2010) (compelling circumstances require totality of case; occasional inconsistencies not enough)
State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 133 P.3d 48 (2006) (multiplicity framework; four guiding factors for same conduct analysis)
State v. Thompson, 287 Kan. 238, 200 P.3d 22 (2009) (two-prong test for multiplicity; same conduct then statutory double jeopardy analysis)
State v. Bello, 289 Kan. 191, 211 P.3d 139 (2009) (age element in off-grid Jessica’s Law offenses; jurisdictional review)