State v. Warren, 270 P.3d 13

Warren Warren was found with a small amount of marijuana in his socks and convicted of introducing contraband into a correctional facility, receiving 122 months.
Warren sought a downward departure from the presumptive sentence based on the small drug quantity; the district court declined, saying it had no authority to depart for quantity.
The court’s appellate jurisdiction question centers on whether a defendant with a presumptive sentence may appeal a district court’s misinterpretation of its sentencing authority.
The appeal also raises whether the district court could have imposed a downward-departure sentence under K.S.A. 21-4716(c)(l)(E) for reduced harm due to the small quantity.
Warren additionally contends the speedy-trial rights under the Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (K.S.A. 22-4301 et seq.) were violated; he had requested final disposition and later waived rights, leading to a renewed trial setting.
The court vacates the sentence and remands for resentencing consistent with its opinion, while affirming the remainder of the district court’s rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate jurisdiction exists to review the misinterpretation of sentencing authority.	Warren argues Cisneros applies; district court misinterpreted authority.	Warren argues for review despite presumptive sentence; district court erred.	Jurisdiction exists to review the misinterpretation of authority.
May a district court downwardly depart for small drug quantity in a prison contraband case?	Small quantity can be a substantial and compelling reason to depart.	Quantity is not a valid departure factor because any contraband is prohibited.	Yes, small quantity is a valid departure factor; remand for resentencing.
Is Warren entitled to a departure under K.S.A. 21-4716(c)(l)(E) for degree of harm being less than typical?	Statute allows departure when harm is less than typical; quantity supports.	Statute requires legally sufficient basis; quantity alone may not suffice given contraband ban.	Valid basis exists for departure consideration; remand for resentencing.
Was there a speedy-trial violation under the Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act?	Unclear waiver and continuances could violate the 180-day rule.	Continuances granted in open court with notice extend the period; waiver issues were resolved.	No speedy-trial violation; waiver and continuances were proper.

State v. Huerta, 291 Kan. 831 (2011) (presumptive-sentence appellate limits; equal-protection and due-process implications)
State v. Dillon, 44 Kan. App. 2d 1138 (2010) (presumptive sentence review and due-process concerns)
State v. Cisneros, 42 Kan. App. 2d 376 (2009) (jurisdiction to review district court misinterpretation of sentencing authority)
State v. Spencer, 291 Kan. 796 (2011) (statutory interpretation of departure authority; independent review)
State v. Watson, 39 Kan. App. 2d 923 (2008) (speedy-trial time limits; extension by continuances)