State v. Urista
293 P.3d 738
Kan.2013Background
- Urista pleaded no contest to numerous crimes under a plea agreement in exchange for the State recommending a 102‑month standard sentence and concurrent terms.
- The district court imposed a controlling term of 204 months and ordered Urista to register as an offender under KORA after release.
- At sentencing, the State made extensive, negative comments about Urista beyond the negotiated recommendation, while reiterating the 102‑month request.
- Defense objected, arguing the comments violated the plea agreement, but the court sentenced per the agreement’s terms with consecutive base sentences and concurrent remaining counts.
- The Court of Appeals upheld the sentence; Urista petitioned for review on three issues: plea breach, KORA under Apprendi, and use of prior convictions under sentencing guidelines.
- This Court vacated the sentence, remanding for a new sentencing hearing before a different judge, finding the prosecutor’s comments breached the plea agreement and were not harmless.
- Because the remand renders the other sentencing issues moot, the Court did not reach those merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the prosecutor breach the plea agreement by sentencing comments? | Urista | Urista | Yes; breach occurred and was not harmless |
| Does KORA registration based on deadly weapon use exceed the statutory maximum under Apprendi? | Urista | Urista | moot after remand; question not reached |
| Must prior convictions used for sentencing guidelines be proved to a jury beyond reasonable doubt under Apprendi? | Urista | Urista | moot after remand; question not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (plea promises must be fulfilled)
- Foster, 39 Kan. App. 2d 380 (Kan. App. 2010) (prosecutor may present relevant information; must not undermine the agreement)
- Johnson, 258 Kan. 100 (Kan. 1995) (State may present facts; not undermine plea agreement)
- Antrim, 294 Kan. 632 (Kan. 2012) (prosecutor's role when the district court can impose the agreed sentence)
- Woodward, 288 Kan. 297 (Kan. 2009) (responding to defense; not undermining the recommendation)
- Crawford, 246 Kan. 231 (Kan. 1990) (State may discuss sentencing factors; need not oppose recommended sentence)
- Hill, 247 Kan. 377 (Kan. 1990) (when plea required a recommendation, prosecutor may rely on PSI materials)