State v. Wetrich
307 Kan. 552
| Kan. | 2018Background
- Roy D. Wetrich was convicted in Kansas (2009) of multiple on-grid felonies and sentenced based on a criminal history score that treated a 1988 Missouri second-degree burglary as a person felony, producing a controlling sentence of 124 months.
- The district court found the Missouri burglary comparable to Kansas burglary of a dwelling and therefore scored it as a person felony; Wetrich disputed that classification.
- The Court of Appeals previously ruled Wetrich could challenge classification and later held the Missouri conviction was not comparable and must be scored as a nonperson felony (reducing his history score from C to E), vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing.
- The State sought Supreme Court review arguing the appellate panel misread Missouri law and conflicted with other Court of Appeals authority.
- The Kansas Supreme Court considered statutory interpretation of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6811(e)(3) (classification of out-of-state convictions) and whether the elements of the foreign offense must be identical-or-narrower than the Kansas reference offense.
- Applying the adopted test, the Court held Missouri second-degree burglary has broader elements (broader mens rea and broader definition of "inhabitable structure") than Kansas burglary of a dwelling and therefore is not comparable; Wetrich’s prior conviction must be classified as nonperson and he is to be resentenced with a criminal history score of E.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wetrich) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an out-of-state felony may be classified as person or nonperson under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6811(e)(3) | Out-of-state felonies are classed by comparing to Kansas offenses; State urged broader comparison including statutory alternatives and prior panel precedent supporting comparability | Wetrich argued the Missouri burglary was not comparable to Kansas burglary of a dwelling and thus must be nonperson | The statute applies; court must refer to comparable Kansas offense in effect when current crime was committed; if none, classify as nonperson |
| What test determines whether an out-of-state offense is "comparable" | State urged a more flexible "close approximation" comparability | Wetrich urged that comparability requires identical-or-narrower elements (per Dickey/Descamps approach) | Court adopted identical-or-narrower elements test: out-of-state elements cannot be broader than Kansas reference offense |
| Whether Missouri second-degree burglary is comparable to Kansas burglary of a dwelling | State argued Missouri statute could be read to match Kansas "dwelling" element and mens rea | Wetrich argued Missouri statute’s elements are broader (purpose to commit any crime; broader "inhabitable structure") | Held not comparable: Missouri statute’s mens rea and definition of structure are broader; cannot be used to score as person felony |
| Remedy / effect on sentence | State sought affirmance of original scoring and sentence | Wetrich sought reclassification and resentencing with lower history score | Court affirmed Court of Appeals: district court reversed, sentence vacated, remanded for resentencing with criminal history score E |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 (Kan. 2015) (applied Descamps and required element-based comparison for burglary scoring)
- State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 (Kan. 2016) (statutory interpretation of KSGA is reviewed de novo)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (U.S. 2013) (modified categorical approach and element-focused comparison for predicate offenses)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (constitutional limits on judicial fact-finding that increases a sentence)
- State v. Vandervort, 276 Kan. 164 (Kan. 2003) (earlier approach referencing the Kansas offense most closely approximating the out-of-state crime)
- State v. Grady, 258 Kan. 72 (Kan. 1995) (legislative principles behind the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act)