State v. Williams
299 Kan. 870
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Williams entered an Alford plea to first-degree felony murder and two counts of arson after a Wichita apartment fire involving domestic violence.
- The parties disputed how to classify a 1996 Ohio conviction for trespass into an occupied structure (Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.12(A)(1)) for Kansas criminal-history scoring.
- If the Ohio conviction was treated as a Kansas "person" crime (comparable to aggravated burglary), Williams’ criminal-history score would be B; if a "nonperson" crime, his score would be C.
- The district court found the Ohio offense comparable to Kansas aggravated burglary (K.S.A. 21-3716 (1995)) and designated it a person crime, producing a history score of B.
- Sentencing under that score produced a controlling sentence of life (with parole ineligible for 20 years) plus 60 months.
- Williams appealed, arguing the out-of-state conviction was not comparable to Kansas aggravated burglary and that any ambiguity should be resolved in his favor under the rule of lenity.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams’ 1996 Ohio conviction should be classified as a Kansas "person" crime comparable to aggravated burglary | The Ohio record was ambiguous and did not establish the Kansas element of intent to permanently deprive (intent to commit theft), so it should be a nonperson crime | The Ohio offense is comparable to Kansas aggravated burglary; comparability (not identical elements) controls, so it is a person crime | Court held the Ohio conviction is comparable to Kansas aggravated burglary and properly classified as a person crime, yielding history score B |
| Whether the rule of lenity required resolving ambiguity in Williams’ favor | Ambiguities in the Ohio complaint required applying lenity to classify the prior conviction as nonperson | Statutory language is unambiguous; lenity not triggered; comparability review governs | Court held K.S.A. 21-4711(e) is not ambiguous and lenity does not apply; evidence-based review of the underlying conviction is improper |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (explains Alford plea concept)
- State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312 (2014) (de novo review for disputed criminal-history score)
- State v. Vandervort, 276 Kan. 164 (2003) (comparability, not identical elements, governs out-of-state classification)
- State v. Williams, 291 Kan. 554 (2010) (comparable-offense determination uses law as of date of out-of-state offense)
- State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84 (2012) (rule of lenity applies only when reasonable doubt exists about statutory meaning)