State v. Woodard, 280 P.3d 203

Background

Woodard pled guilty to three counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child involving his twin stepchildren over five years, beginning around 2004 when he was about 38.
Jessica’s Law imposes a hard 25-life sentence (with a minimum 25-year term) for these crimes; Woodard sought a downward departure.
The district court denied departure and imposed three concurrent hard 25 life terms; Woodard appeals on constitutional and departure grounds.
A bifurcated Eighth Amendment analysis governs proportionality: a case-specific threshold inquiry, then potential nationwide comparisons if gross disproportionality is found.
Kansas § 9 (Bill of Rights) requires a Freeman three-prong test: nature of offense/offender, intra-Kansas punishments, and interstate punishments for similar offenses.
The court held the sentences constitutionally permissible under both the Eighth Amendment and Kansas Constitution, and affirmed denial of departure.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the hard 25-life sentences are cruel or unusual punishment	Woodard argues disproportionality under Eighth Amendment.	State contends offenses and abuse context justify sentence.	Not grossly disproportionate; constitutional under Eighth Amendment.
Whether Kansas § 9 cruel/unusual punishment analysis supports revoking the sentence	Woodard contends sentence violates Freeman factors.	State relies on similar factors, broad community protection and trust violations.	Not a violation; Freeman factors supportive of sentence.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying departure from Jessica’s Law	Woodard claimed lesser harm warranted departure under K.S.A. 21-4643(d).	State emphasized extensive harm, trust abuse, and ongoing impact.	No abuse of discretion; departure denial affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157, 194 P.3d 1195 (2008) (frames bifurcated Eighth Amendment review in Kansas)
State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76, 201 P.3d 673 (2009) (explains standard of review for proportionality findings)
State v. Woolverton, 284 Kan. 59, 159 P.3d 985 (2007) (reiterates bifurcated standard of review for sentenced-based challenges)
State v. Laturner, 289 Kan. 727, 218 P.3d 23 (2009) (preserves deference to statute’s constitutionality when possible)
State ex rel. Six v. Kansas Lottery, 286 Kan. 557, 186 P.3d 183 (2008) (court safeguards constitutionality and defers to legislative policy)
State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858, 235 P.3d 1203 (2010) (discusses proportionality framework for Eighth Amendment)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010) (proportionality in term-of-years sentences; threshold comparison)
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 123 S. Ct. 1179 (2003) (extreme sentence prohibition; no strict proportionality required)
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 122 S. Ct. 2017 (2002) (government interest in protecting youth from sexual offenders can justify incarceration)
State v. Nunn, 247 Kan. 576, 802 P.2d 547 (1990) (longstanding Kansas precedent upholding severe penalties)
Adaway v. State, 902 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2005) (foreign jurisdiction upholds life imprisonment without parole for capital sexual battery)
Martin v. Commonwealth, 493 S.W.2d 714 (Ky. App. 1973) (similar constitutional upholds life without parole for rape offender)
State v. Berniard, 860 So.2d 66 (La. App. 2003) (mandatory life for aggravated rape not excessive)
State v. Thorp, 356 Mont. 150, 231 P.3d 1096 (2010) (mandatory life for sexual offense not unconstitutional)
State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588, 502 S.E.2d 819 (1998) (juvenile adult sexual offense; mandatory life sentence not unconstitutional)
State v. Alwinger, 236 Or. App. 240, 236 P.3d 755 (2010) (mandatory 25-year term for child sexual offense constitutional)
State v. Wiese, 238 Or. App. 426, 241 P.3d 1210 (2010) (concurrent 25-year terms for sex offenses not disproportionate)
State v. Meyrovich, 204 Or. App. 385, 129 P.3d 729 (2006) (non-consensual touching case not exceeding constitutional bounds)