State v. Warren, 297 Kan. 881

Waddell Warren was convicted of introducing a controlled substance into a correctional facility and sentenced to 122 months.
Warren sought a downward departure due to the small amount of marijuana found in his socks; district court refused to consider.
Warren appealed, alleging lack of jurisdiction to review the district court’s refusal and improper handling of the departure issue.
Court of Appeals held it had jurisdiction to review the denial and that the amount could be considered; remanded for resentencing.
State petitioned for Supreme Court review on the sentencing issue; Supreme Court granted and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ approach and remand directive.
Supreme Court adopted the Court of Appeals’ reasoning and remanded for proper discretionary consideration of a departure question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review under presumptive sentence	Warren argues the appeal is permissible.	State contends no jurisdiction to review presumptive sentence.	Court has jurisdiction to consider the limited issue.
Depature based on small quantity of drugs	Warren contends small quantity can be a substantial reason to depart.	State argues quantity is not a valid departure factor.	District court could have considered a downward departure based on quantity; remand for proper exercise of discretion.

State v. Huerta, 291 Kan. 831, 247 P.3d 1043 (2011) (limits appellate review of presumptive sentences; equal-protection concerns addressed)
State v. Dillon, 44 Kan. App. 2d 1138, 244 P.3d 680 (2010) (disapproved in Huerta; addressed appellate review of misinterpreted sentencing discretion)
State v. Cisneros, 42 Kan. App. 2d 376, 212 P.3d 246 (2009) (jurisdiction to review misinterpretation of sentencing authority in probation revocation cases)
State v. Spencer, 291 Kan. 796, 248 P.3d 256 (2011) (statutory interpretation governs sentencing departures; independence from deference to district court)