State v. Stanley (
112828
| Kan. Ct. App. | Mar 1, 2017Background
- Defendant Justin D. Stanley was convicted in Kansas (bench trial on stipulated facts) of felony DUI under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567; sentence included jail and house arrest.
- At sentencing the State relied on two prior convictions: a Kansas municipal DUI and a Missouri DWI (Caldwell County).
- Stanley moved to exclude the Missouri DWI from his criminal history, arguing Missouri law is broader and not substantially similar to Kansas DUI.
- The district court denied the motion and considered the Missouri conviction for sentence enhancement.
- On appeal the Kansas court reviewed whether the Missouri statute criminalizes the same acts as the Kansas DUI statute for purposes of K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(i).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior Missouri DWI conviction qualifies as a prior conviction under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(i) | State: Missouri caselaw forbids conduct equivalent to Kansas DUI, so Missouri conviction counts | Stanley: Missouri statute criminalizes any intoxication that impairs driving and lacks Kansas’s required degree ("incapable of safely driving"), so it is broader and should not count | Court held Missouri statute is broader; Missouri conviction does not qualify and cannot be used for sentencing enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schroeder, 330 S.W.3d 468 (Mo. 2011) (Missouri focuses on fact of intoxication—any impairment—rather than a required degree of incapacity)
- State v. Cox, 478 S.W.2d 339 (Mo. 1972) (rejecting jury instruction that would require proof of intoxication to a degree that interferes with proper operation)
- State v. Seitz, 384 S.W.3d 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (under Missouri law, the fact—not the degree—of intoxication is the significant issue)
- State v. Teaster, 962 S.W.2d 429 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (describing common physical signs of intoxication used in proof)
- State v. Pickering, 473 S.W.3d 698 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) (Missouri courts examine impairment generally under the statute)
- State v. Eddy, 299 Kan. 29 (Kan. 2014) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)