STATE v. WHITAKER (2021)

Court of Appeals of Kansas.2021-09-24No. No. 123,293

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal was dismissed because the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review presumptive sentences that fall within the statutory ranges established for the crime.

Juan ONeil Whitaker Jr. entered a guilty plea to multiple felonies and misdemeanors across six consolidated cases. At sentencing, he requested that the district court depart from presumptive prison sentences by imposing probation instead and ordering his felony sentences to run consecutively. The district court denied the departure motion based on Whitaker's criminal history score and imposed sentences within the presumptive ranges.

Whitaker appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for departure to probation. However, Kansas appellate law prohibits courts from reviewing sentences that fall within the presumptive sentencing ranges for the offense. Because Whitaker's felony sentences were within the statutory presumptive ranges for non-drug crimes, the appellate court determined it lacked authority to address his arguments.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Appellate jurisdiction over presumptive sentences
Denial of dispositional departure motion to probation
Statutory sentencing ranges and judicial discretion

Procedural posture

Whitaker appealed from the district court's denial of his motion for sentencing departure, requesting summary disposition.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Juan ONeil Whitaker Jr. pled guilty in a global plea agreement to multiple felonies and misdemeanors in six different cases, which the district court consolidated for appeal. The facts of the cases are not material to resolve the issue on appeal.

At sentencing, Whitaker moved the district court to depart from the presumptive prison sentences in his cases to probation and to run his felony conviction sentences consecutive. The district court announced his presumptive sentences in 19CR233 for his two felony convictions for a controlling sentence of 38 months imprisonment; his sentence in 20CR183 of 34 months imprisonment to be served consecutively to 19CR233, for a base sentence of 72 months; and then ordered all of his other sentences as announced in each case to run concurrent to the base sentence. Next, based on Whitakers criminal history score of A, the district court denied his motion to depart.

We granted Whitakers request for summary disposition of his appeal under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). Whitaker argues the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for dispositional departure to probation, but he also concedes we lack jurisdiction to consider his presumptive sentences. Whitaker is correct. Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820(c)(1), this court “shall not review ․ [a]ny sentence that is within the presumptive sentence for the crime.” Whitakers on-grid felony sentences fall within the presumptive ranges established by K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6804 for nondrug crimes. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider Whitakers claim the district court abused its discretion.

Appeal dismissed.

Per Curiam: