State v. Shank
304 Kan. 89
Kan.2016Background
- William Shank pled guilty to first-degree murder, aggravated arson, and aggravated burglary for stabbing Teri Morris 27 times, inflicting blunt force trauma, setting her house on fire while she was alive, and taking the child from the scene.
- Evidence at plea/sentencing: Morris had soot in airways (alive when fire set); Shank had Morris' blood on his clothing and vehicle, his DNA at the victim's residence, and internet searches on breaking in.
- At sentencing the State sought consecutive sentences; defense sought concurrent sentences and did not object to the restitution schedule at the hearing.
- The district court imposed consecutive sentences (life with 25-year mandatory minimum for murder; 59 months for arson; 32 months for burglary) and ordered $108,427.65 in restitution primarily for the damaged house.
- Shank appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by (1) ordering consecutive rather than concurrent sentences and (2) imposing an "unworkable" restitution plan given his lack of resources.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Shank) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were an abuse of discretion | Consecutive sentences appropriate given egregious, premeditated, brutal murder and vulnerability of victim | Consecutive sentences "needlessly" lengthen punishment; should run concurrently | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; consecutive sentences proportionate to harm and culpability |
| Whether restitution order was an abuse of discretion / unworkable | Restitution mandatory absent compelling circumstances; Shank failed to show unworkability or preserve objection | Restitution unworkable because Shank lacks assets and cannot pay | Court affirmed: defense failed to object/present evidence of compelling circumstances; restitution not unworkable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilson, 301 Kan. 403 (discusses sentencing discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive terms)
- State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. King, 288 Kan. 333 (defendant bears burden to show restitution unworkable; failure to object preserves no challenge)
- State v. Alcala, 301 Kan. 832 (imprisonment alone does not render restitution unworkable; must show inability to pay after release)
- State v. Goeller, 276 Kan. 578 (amount of restitution reviewed for abuse of discretion)