State v. Tapia, 287 P.3d 879

Tapia was convicted of nonresidential burglary, theft, vehicular burglary, and conspiracy to commit nonresidential burglary after a jury trial.
The sole conspiracy issue centered on whether the complaint properly alleged an overt act under K.S.A. 21-3302(a).
Garcia and Fraire testified; Garcia- and Fraire-related statements connected Tapia to the burglary scheme.
Tapia moved for an accomplice jury instruction; the district court denied, leading to appellate review.
The district court imposed consecutive aggravated sentences within the sentencing grid; Tapia challenged their constitutionality under Apprendi/ Ivory.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; this court granted review to address whether a defective complaint forecloses sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Conspiracy sufficiency given defective complaint	Tapia argues the State failed to allege an overt act, requiring reversal for insufficient evidence.	Tapia contends Marino requires insufficiency if overt act not alleged or proven.	Defective complaint does not compel insufficiency; Hall-based remedy applies.
Accomplice instruction was required	Garcia and Fraire are accomplices; instruction requested as PIK 3d 52.18.	Accomplice instruction not given; error, if any, harmless given corroboration.	Accomplice instruction legally and factually appropriate; harmless under record.
Use of criminal history for Apprendi violation	Enhanced sentences based on history must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and in the complaint.	Ivory/Bennington precedent controls; no Apprendi violation here.	No Apprendi violation; prior history properly used under existing precedent.
Aggravated terms within grid boxes	Enhanced terms challenge constitutional validity; presumption sentencing barred by precedents.	Direct appeal lacks jurisdiction to review presumptive sentence issues.	Jurisdictional approach affirmed; no direct review of presumptive terms.
Overall approach to defective complaint and Hall framework	Marino should control; Shirley distinguishes pre- and post-Hall standards.	Court should apply Shirley/Hall as explained by Tapia and overrule Marino/Shirley dicta.	Court adopts Hall-based approach; overrules Marino/Shirley-as-defect-sufficiency dichotomy.

State v. Shirley, 277 Kan. 659 (2003) (overfacts: overt act must be alleged and proved; pre-Hall analysis applies)
State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728 (1990) (informing complaint sufficiency and right to elements; pre-Hall and post-Hall tests)
State v. Marino, 34 Kan. App. 2d 857 (2006) (no overt act alleged; conspiracy evidence deemed insufficient under Marino approach)
State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 (2009) (jury instruction error excusable only where substantial rights not prejudiced)
State v. McElroy, 281 Kan. 256 (2006) (elements of crime must be pleaded and proven; jurisdictional concerns)
State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (2002) (Apprendi context and criminal history considerations)