State v. Young, 490 P.3d 1183

Paul B. Young committed a felony in 2017 while on felony probation for a prior KORA conviction; he pleaded guilty to the new charge.
At sentencing the judge revoked probation, imposed the underlying 61-month term, and imposed an 89-month presumptive term for the new conviction to run consecutive to the earlier sentence.
The judge applied K.S.A. 21-6606 (mandatory consecutive term for crimes committed while on felony probation); Young asked the court to find that applying 21-6606 would be a "manifest injustice" under K.S.A. 21-6819(a) and to order concurrent sentences.
Young appealed, arguing the manifest-injustice determination (and thus the concurrent-vs-consecutive decision) was reviewable on appeal under the general appellate jurisdiction statute (K.S.A. 22-3602) and that the Court of Appeals should reach the merits.
A Court of Appeals majority dismissed Young's appeal for lack of jurisdiction under K.S.A. 21-6820(c)(1) (non-reviewability of sentences within the presumptive guidelines); one judge dissented, treating the manifest-injustice ruling as outside that limitation.
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that appeals arising from sentences imposed under the presumptive sentencing guidelines system (including application of 21-6606 and the manifest-injustice exception in 21-6819(a)) are governed by 21-6820 and are not reviewable here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review a district court's finding that "manifest injustice" does not arise under K.S.A. 21-6819(a)	Young: 22-3602 grants broad jurisdiction; manifest-injustice finding is appealable and distinct from a presumptive-duration sentence	State: 21-6820 limits appeals of sentences under the presumptive guideline system; presumptive sentences (and related consecutive orders) are not reviewable	Court: No jurisdiction; 21-6820 governs appeals under the guidelines system and bars review of this discretionary manifest-injustice determination
Whether 21-6819(a) (manifest-injustice exception) lies outside article 68 appellate limits	Young: 21-6819(a) is a distinct exception and not an appeal-limiting provision of article 68	State: 21-6819 incorporates 21-6606 into the guidelines system, bringing it within article 68 and 21-6820's scope	Court: 21-6819(a) is part of the presumptive-guideline system; 21-6820 applies
Precedent effect (Jacobs, Ross, Ware/Flores) on appealability of consecutive on-grid sentences	Young: Ross undermines older cases that relied on the "presumptive sentence" definition; Jacobs should be revisited	State: Jacobs and related on-grid precedents support dismissal; Ross only limited Flores/Ware for off-grid cases	Court: Ross disapproved Flores/Ware for off-grid crimes but did not disturb the line of cases (including Jacobs) holding consecutive on-grid presumptive sentencing decisions non-appealable; dismissal affirmed

State v. Jacobs, 293 Kan. 465 (2011) (consecutive presumptive guideline sentences are not an appealable departure)
State v. Ross, 295 Kan. 1126 (2012) (disapproved Flores/Ware reasoning as to off-grid crimes)
State v. Ware, 262 Kan. 180 (1997) (held appeals challenging consecutive sentences are not permitted)
State v. Flores, 268 Kan. 657 (2000) (followed Ware on non-appealability of consecutive sentences)
State v. Peal, 20 Kan. App. 2d 816 (1995) (Court of Appeals held no jurisdiction to review consecutive presumptive sentences)
State v. McCallum, 21 Kan. App. 2d 40 (1995) (same)
State v. Bramlett, 273 Kan. 67 (2002) (reinforced non-appealability of consecutive presumptive sentences)
State v. Brune, 307 Kan. 370 (2018) (discussed sentencing discretion for concurrent vs consecutive terms)
State v. Horn, 302 Kan. 255 (2015) (recognized traditional deference to sentencing courts on concurrent/consecutive decisions)